A NEWPORT father jailed for failing to get medical help for his sick baby son, who later died, and cruelty to two other children, has won a cut in his sentence.

The 37-year-old, who cannot be named, was jailed for five years at Cardiff crown court last January after being convicted of two counts of child cruelty and one of failing to seek medical assistance.

He was acquitted of nine other counts, including inflicting grievous bodily harm on the baby who died - who was found to have a fractured skull and at least two fractures to a leg.

London's Criminal Appeal Court yesterday cut his term to three years, saying the judge's sentencing was wrong in deciding a version of facts least favourable to the defendant.

Mr Justice Grigson, sitting with Lord Justice Rose and Mrs Justice Rafferty, said the mother pleaded guilty to one child cruelty count and was sentenced to four months in jail.

But another appeal court hearing quashed her sentence, imposing a community rehabilitation order.

Mr Justice Grigson said the father took the baby to the hospital in 2001 but the child was dead on arrival.

A post mortem examination revealed he had a viral infection, bronchitis and pneumonia. The cause of death was pneumonia and not a head injury.

But experts at his trial said the failure to seek medical help was about 24 hours; if the baby had been seen earlier his life would almost certainly have been saved.

The father's QC, Peter Murphy, told the appeal court that after the verdict, trial Judge John Griffith Williams, QC, sentenced him as if the failure to seek medical help caused the death.

Mr Justice Grigson agreed it was as if the father was convicted of manslaughter.

The cruelty charges involved the father placing a crying daughter in a cupboard, holding her over a waste bin and forcing her in front of a TV or stereo with the volume turned up.

A second charge involved the father throwing a son over the settee and keeping him in squalor.

Mr Justice Grigson said jurors were told that if they found the father had done just one act involved in a charge, he would be guilty. But, when sentencing, the judge concluded he had done all the things alleged against him.

Mr Justice Grigson said this meant the appeal must be allowed.