Baby injury charges 'not proved'

Chantelle Raschid may have been caring for the boy at the time

A woman suspected of attacking a baby boy who was left brain damaged did not face more serious charges because it could not be proved she had harmed him.

A judge at Manchester Crown Court said Child A's injuries "must have been inflicted" while in the care of Chantelle Raschid or Nicholas Muhanza.

But neither was charged because there was no evidence to prove who was caring for him at the time, the court heard.

Raschid was given a suspended sentence for a separate assault charge.

Child A, who was said to have "cried until he had no more tears", was taken to hospital by ambulance in 3 July 2007.

Doctors discovered he had multiple fractures to his skull, both collarbones, five ribs were broken as were the bones of both upper and lower arms and legs.

The court heard that his injuries were consistent with the child being swung or flung against a hard surface.

The reality was that these injuries must have occurred while they were the carers Neil Fryman, prosecuting

But because it could not be proved that either Raschid or Mr Muhanza, acting alone or together, harmed the child directly, charges of inflicting the injuries had to be dropped.

Raschid, 22, from Lightfoot Walk, Beswick, Manchester, pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to a Section 20 assault for picking up the child by his arm and a single count of neglect.

On Thursday, she was given an eight month jail sentence, suspended for two years.

A formal not guilty verdict was entered on the charge that she harmed the child.

Mr Muhanza, 22, was cleared of neglect following a two week trial in April.

'No evidence'

Judge David Hernandez, sentencing, told Raschid: "I have to sentence you not for causing or being involved in causing these injuries but for essentially failing to seek timely medical attention for him and also for grabbing his arm.

"There were no admissions from you that either you or Nicholas Muhanza caused or witnessed these injuries.

"There was, therefore, no evidence either of you caused the injuries, or were present at the time, that led to the prosecution being compelled to offer no evidence on allegations that you or Nicholas Muhanza caused the more serious injuries.

"They must have been inflicted while being cared for by either or both of you, but because of the imprecision of the timing of the injuries one could not say who was looking after him at the particular time."

Neil Fryman, prosecuting, told the court: "The reality was that these injuries must have occurred while they were the carers.

"Because there was no suggestion of a joint enterprise between the defendants the allegation against them of causing the injuries had to be dropped."

Child A was taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary in the early hours of 3 July 2007, where he spent a week on a life support machine.

Now aged two, he will need constant care for the rest of his life due to his permanent brain damage and blindness.

A serious case review involving a number of agencies has now been set up to investigate the matter.