Support our Nation today - please donate here
News

Court of Appeal rejects bid to increase sentence of couple who murdered grandson

12 Mar 2026 4 minute read
CCTV image issued by North Wales Police of two-year-old Ethan Ives (centre) in the front garden of the family home in Garden City, Deeside with Michael and Kerry Ives (left) in the days leading up to him suffering a catastrophic head injury. Photo: North Wales Police /PA Wire

The Court of Appeal has rejected a bid to increase the sentences of a couple who were jailed for life for murdering their two-year-old grandson.

Ethan Ives-Griffiths was subjected to weeks of abuse at the hands of Michael Ives, 48, and his wife Kerry Ives, 47.

The toddler was extremely dehydrated and severely underweight, with visible marks and bruises, when he collapsed with a catastrophic head injury at his grandparents’ home in Flintshire, north Wales, in August 2021.

In October last year, the couple were jailed for life at Mold Crown Court. Michael Ives was sentenced to a minimum of 23 years imprisonment, and Kerry Ives for a minimum of 17 years.

On Thursday, Bill Emlyn Jones KC, for the Solicitor General, asked the Court of Appeal in London to increase the sentences, saying they were “unduly lenient”.

But Lord Justice Popplewell, Mr Justice Sweeting and Judge Penelope Moreland ruled that the sentences were appropriate and should not be increased.

Reading the judgment, Lord Justice Popplewell said Ethan was a “brave” and “resilient” boy with a “strong character” and that his grandparents “did not like him standing up for himself”.

Setting out some of the facts of the offending, he added that CCTV showed Michael Ives carrying his grandson by the top of his arm and appearing to punch him after putting him into a car seat.

Other footage showed the boy in the back garden “walking with a peculiar, wide stance and an uncertain gait”, which could be linked to the early effects of brain injuries caused by previous blows to his head, the judge said.

To humiliate Ethan, Michael would make him stand with his hands on his head, he added.

Ethan had been placed on the child protection register, requiring him to be seen every 10 days, but when his mother last saw her social worker, on August 5, she spoke to him on the doorstep and told him Ethan was having a nap.

Lord Justice Popplewell continued: “On behalf of the Solicitor General, Mr Jones contends that for Michael and Kerry the minimum terms of 23 years, and 17 years, respectively, were unduly lenient.”

He continued: “He says that when sentencing for the murder the judge could not divorce the aggravating factors of the murder from the factors of what had gone before.”

The judge added: “In Michael’s case, we are not persuaded that the sentence was unduly lenient.”

He also said that it was clear that the sentencing judge, Mr Justice Griffiths, had the overall position “clearly” in mind.

The judge said that the panel was also “unpersuaded” in Kerry’s case that the minimum term was unduly lenient.

“The judge was very well placed to assess her culpability and personal mitigation,” Lord Justice Popplewell said.

Ethan’s mother, Shannon Ives, 28, of Rhes-y-Cae, near Holywell, who had been staying with her son at her parents’ home, was found guilty of causing or allowing his death and of child cruelty, and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Gordon Cole KC, for the mother, appealed against her sentence, telling the court the jail term was “too long” and that the judge had not fully taken into account her personal mitigation.

Lord Justice Popplewell said the judges had given careful consideration to his arguments but were unpersuaded that they justified “interfering with the sentence”.


Support our Nation today

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Our Supporters

All information provided to Nation.Cymru will be handled sensitively and within the boundaries of the Data Protection Act 2018.