A man who murdered an 11-week-old baby has been jailed for life, after leaving the boy with numerous injuries including a fractured skull and bleed to the brain.
Kane Mitchell, of no fixed address but formerly of St Neots, inflicted a catalogue of injuries on Teddie Mitchell at his home in St Neots. These injuries led to Teddie’s death in hospital on the 11th November 2019.
Mitchell, 31, was found guilty of murder last month following a four-week trial. On Friday 5th February at Cambridge Crown Court, he was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum tariff of 18 years, minus the time served on remand.
Mitchell was ordered to serve a further five years concurrent for allowing / causing serious harm to a child.
Teddie’s mother, Lucci Smith, 30, of Pattison Court, St Neots, who was found guilty of neglect, was given a two-year community order.
Both have been barred from activities with children.
The Court heard how Teddie had suffered weeks of neglect and rough handling during his short life.
Mitchell and Smith lived together with baby Teddie and had been in a relationship for about eight months.
On 1st November 2019 at 15:00 hours, the ambulance service was called to Pattison Court, St Neots, where Teddie was found to be unresponsive and in cardiac arrest.
Smith had left the baby in the care of Mitchell while she did the morning school run. On her return, she noticed Teddie seemed lethargic and wouldn’t take his bottle.
She later contacted a GP after Teddie’s condition deteriorated and was advised to call 999. But she waited about half an hour before finally calling for help.
Teddie was rushed to the Special Care Baby Unit at Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon, where doctors discovered he had a fractured skull and a significant bleed on the brain.
Due to both officers and medical staff being concerned about how Teddie received his injuries, Mitchell and Smith were both arrested at the hospital. Teddie was later transferred to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge for a specialist neurology assessment and placed in intensive care on life support. Sadly, doctors concluded he would not recover.
Teddie was kept stable on a life support machine, however, after 11 days, a decision was made to withdraw the life support and he passed away shortly after. A post mortem revealed Teddie died as a result of his fractured skull and lack of oxygen to the brain.
During the trial, the jury were read statements from neighbours who said they had heard arguments coming from the address on a regular basis and that the household had been unsettled since Mitchell moved in.
Cambridgeshire Police said that when interviewed, Mitchell said he believed he was Teddie’s biological father. However, DNA results following the death revealed he was not. He could not explain how Teddie came to suffer his fatal injuries.
In Smith’s police interview, she claimed her and Mitchell were in a loving relationship and they rarely argued. She also couldn’t explain how Teddie came to have his fatal injuries.
The jury deliberated for two days following the four-week trial before reaching a verdict.
Detective Inspector Lucy Thomson, from the Beds Cambs and Herts Major Crime Unit, said:
“This is a tragic and terrible case in which an 11-week-old baby lost his life at the hands of a person who should have been there to protect him.
“Our investigation found that Teddie had suffered multiple injuries during his short life which neither Mitchell or Smith could account for.
“The conclusion of this case won’t bring Teddie back, but it does bring some justice for what he endured.”
In sentencing, the officers were commended for their diligent and professional investigation by Judge Robin Knowles.
An NSPCC spokesperson said:
“This is a deeply disturbing case, in which a baby was murdered by a man, who had taken on the role of his parent and so should have been the very one protecting and nurturing him.
“Tragic cases like this, underline the vulnerability of babies who are completely dependent on their parents and carers for their welfare.
“It’s so important that people come forward and report child abuse whenever there’s worry. Please call the NSPCC helpline confidentially on 0808 800 5000.”
Stay up-to-date with more news from the front line by subscribing to our free newsletter. Subscribe by clicking HERE.
Got a story? Send your videos and pictures to contact@emergency-services.news You can also find us on Twitter @ES_News_
Before you go...
We need your help. As former emergency services & armed forces personnel, we pride ourselves on bringing you important, fast-moving and breaking news stories which are free from the negative bias which is often directed at the emergency services by some sections of the mainstream media.
One of the reasons we started 'Emergency Services News' was because we became tired of reading badly informed stories about the emergency services which seemed only ever to highlight negative aspects of the job.
We want to be the unheard voice of the remarkable men and women who serve in the emergency services, NHS and armed forces. And with around 500k page views each month, we are getting there!
As income from ads, the mainstay source of income for most publishers, continues to decline; we need the help of our readers.
And remember, if you have a service, product or job vacancy that you would like to promote to our large readership, then you can buy advertising space in our articles.
You can support emergency services news from as little as £1. It only takes a minute. Every contribution, however big or small, is vital for our future.
Please help us to continue to highlight the life-saving work of the emergency services, NHS and armed forces by becoming a supporter.
Why should remand count as part of the sentence? Bearing in mind he was innocent until proven guilty, technically an innocent man was held against his will.
I have no problem with remand, indeed I would like to see many more locked up pending trial but there is the issue of innocence. What if guilt could not be proved; bear in mind until the jury foreman stood up, he was innocent. What about his time on remand then? Tough luck I suppose.
So the guilty, in this case of an awful crime, get a discount but the innocent are well and truly stuffed. This, like to much of our useless judicial system, is quite wrong.
There are two ways to play this. One is to ;pay the innocent compensation. this would involve armies of do-gooders and shifty lawyers screwing the state at vast cost, so this is neither viable nor desirable as an option.
The other, much more attractive option is to treat time spent on remand as null and void either way. Any sentence should not include remand as part of the time served. Bear in mind that there has to be very good reason for remanding someone in the first place, so the chances of a not guilty verdict are much reduced. Nonetheless, if such a verdict is returned, the innocent person has spent time locked with no come back. While the guilty get a reduced sentence, the innocent have to lump it.
This is hardly justice.