Justice for young victims like Shanay Walker #JusticeForShanay #ShanaysLaw

Justice for young victims like Shanay Walker #JusticeForShanay #ShanaysLaw

0 have signed. Let’s get to 1,500!
At 1,500 signatures, this petition is more likely to get picked up by local news!
charlotte Martin started this petition to Houses of Parliament


Shanay’s Law!!

So 5 years ago I set up a petition to try and help get some sort of justice for this beautiful little girl Shanay Walker. I know your all looking at her picture and remembering her face sadly she was taken from this world by her cruel sadistic Aunt Kay Ann Morris and Grandmother Juanila Smikle.

Unfortunately we didn’t get enough signatures for them to be tried again for murder Shanay was failed again!

We got almost 4,000 signatures last time that wasn’t enough.

use your power of your businesses social networking sites and make this viral lets  get this into Parliament and have Shanays voice heard these two women were not even given the maximum sentence for the crime they was found guilty of how Is that justice.

No one has ever been charged with Shanay’s murder:

Social services,The Police,The school she attended and many other care givers all failed Shanay she was no more than too much paperwork to fill in at the end of the day and that’s not good enough. How many more children is this going to happen to?

Shanay was bright she was funny she loved to dance and sing until she was placed into the care of Aunt Kay Ann Morris. Shanay was a loving big sister and daughter who is terribly missed she had her whole life ahead of her.

This girl was MURDERED she was tortured by grown women more than 3x her size
She was deprived of food stopped from using the toilet beaten so badly she was unrecognisable. The coroners report recorded over 50 injuries including her face arms legs back and buttocks Shanay still continued to be beaten after her death can you believe these two women are now free and able to start a whole new life.

The things they did to Shanay are unspeakable but I feel like her story needs to be told again and again if it has to be this is something we should all remember to prevent this from happening again.

Brutal attacks where carried out on Shanay food was shoved into her mouth until she choked clothes were used to gag her she was burned with hair straighteners she was beaten with a hair brush
from the top of her back to her bottom there where over 50 separate injuries on a child so small Recordings where played out in court of Shanay being taunted and called ugly as a pig what child should be put through any of that. CCTV footage was also played out of shanay running barefoot in pyjamas to a shop begging for water how many people could of stopped this little girl from going through this as adults in this country we all carry a responsibility to safe guard our innocent children.


Brutal beating'
The court heard Ms Morris told police officers Shanay had accidently fallen down the stairs.
The prosecution said the aunt was "covering up the truth" that she had subjected her niece to a "sustained, vicious and brutal beating".
A paramedic who arrived at the scene said the child's leg were "covered in bruises and scab wounds".
A post-mortem examination found more than 50 injuries to Shanay's body, face, arms, legs and buttocks and the cause of death was a brain injury.
Teachers at Shanay's school told police her personality changed from "bubbly and happy" to "introverted and anxious" when she was around her aunt.
The prosecution said two neighbours had told police they had seen Shanay "upset, crying and even hysterical" at times.
The trial continues.

Mr Macduff said: "I consider this to be just about the worst case of child cruelty it is possible to imagine... This little girl wanted your love, your protection, and your support.
"Instead she was subjected to all of this in what was a most wicked betrayal of trust."

"Maybe you were not responsible for the fatal head injury. But whatever its cause, I am wholly satisfied that you beat Shanay over and over, shortly before she died," he said.


But yet still no body has been held accountable for this young girls murder how is this acceptable she has lost her life

A young mum was punished for having postnatal depression her children taken away from her rather than a supportive plan and network being provided which would of saved this girls life.

This abuse was happening over periods of time not a one off event the signs were all there and nobody gave Shanay the voice she needed!!

We want to Make this Shanay’s Law and get the sentence increased to maximum of 20 years from 14 years What is that in comparison to a child’s life let’s come together and get these children justice.

Causing or allowing death or serious physical harm
Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (DVCVA 2004) created the offence of causing or allowing the death a child or vulnerable adult. The section was amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012. The amendment came into force on 2 July 2012 and extended the offence in section 5 to cover cases of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm.

This stand-alone offence imposes a duty upon members of a household to take reasonable steps to protect children or vulnerable adults within that household from the foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from other household members.

Special care should be taken when considering liability of persons under 16. Prosecutors are reminded that other than for parents of V, a person cannot be held responsible for failures to take reasonable steps prior to reaching the age of 16.

The offence is made out where evidence exists to establish the following elements:

a child or vulnerable adult ("V") has died or suffered serious physical harm;
the death or serious physical harm was the result of an unlawful act, course of conduct or omission of a person ("D") who was a member of the same household as V and who had frequent contact with V;
there existed at the time of death a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of any member of that household and either:
D was the person whose unlawful act caused V's death or serious physical harm; or
D was, or ought to have been, aware of that risk and failed to take such steps as he or she could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from that risk of serious physical harm; and
The death or serious physical harm occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.
Note: 'significant' does not mean 'more than minimal' as it would for manslaughter, it carries its ordinary meaning: R v Mujuru (2007) EWCA Crim 1249.

The prosecution does not have to prove which of the two possible alternatives, (a) or (b) above, applies. In other words, D is equally liable to conviction whether he or she was the perpetrator of the act that actually caused V's death or serious physical harm or simply failed to protect V from a foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from another member of the household who had frequent contact with V. This dual basis for criminal liability remedies one of the main perceived difficulties with the law relating to other possible charges such as murder or manslaughter.

In every case the prosecution must prove that V's death or serious physical harm occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen. This requirement protects, from criminal liability, those whose dependants die from unlawful acts that had nothing to do with the foreseeable risk of harm within the household, e.g. where V is at risk of serious harm from an abusive parent but is subsequently killed by a friend of the family who had until then little contact with the household.

Further, section 5(6) DVCVA confirms that in this context "serious" harm is to be equated with the level of physical harm that amounts to grievous bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The risk that must be foreseen relates to that level of harm and the risk itself must be significant rather than minimal or fanciful.

The section also contains definitions of the terms "child" and "vulnerable adult" amongst others. The definition applied to vulnerable witnesses is wider than that applied to the same phrase in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

However, it is clear from the wording of section 5 that the test of what could be foreseen is not purely subjective but also contains a "reasonableness" dimension. In determining potential liability the proper test to be applied is "what would have been reasonable for this defendant to have foreseen?" Therefore, a defendant may be fixed with knowledge if the nature of the risk was such that he or she should reasonably have been aware of it even if they claim not to have been.

Frequent contact could include family members or carers, but is not confined to that group.

Household is defined in section 5(4)(a) DVCVA and will be given its ordinary meaning. It is not likely to include care homes or nurseries where a child is looked after with a number of others. A paid or voluntary domiciliary carer, a housekeeper or an au-pair or similar may fall under the definition, if it would be reasonable in the circumstances. Under the Act, a person may be regarded as a member of the household for the purpose of this offence if they visit so often, and for such periods of time, that it is reasonable to regard that person as a member of the household. Membership of a household will be for the courts to determine on a case by case basis.

Prosecutors are also reminded that section 6 (5) of the DVCVA provides for an offence of causing or allowing a person’s death under section 5 to be treated as an offence of homicide for the purposes of:

the MCA 1980, sections 24 and 25, relating to mode of trial of a child or young person;
the CDA 1998, section 51A, relating to sending cases to the Crown Court in relation to children and young persons;
the PCC(S) A 2000, section 8, relating to the remittal of young offenders to youth courts for sentence.

It is an offence triable only on indictment.

Where death occurs the offence carries a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment or a fine, or both. Although this section creates an offence, there is a clear link with manslaughter which should influence sentencing R v Ikram (Abid) [2008] EWCA Crim 586.

Where serious physical harm occurs, the offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.

The Sentencing Council issued a definitive guideline on Causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm/ Causing or allowing a child to die which came into force on 1 January 2019. This guideline applies only when the victim of the offence is aged 15 or under


0 have signed. Let’s get to 1,500!
At 1,500 signatures, this petition is more likely to get picked up by local news!