This is what the judge said when sentencing a Wigan dad for killing baby daughter Hollie Ashurst

He imposed a 12-year prison term for Ashurst, who was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury at Manchester Crown Court.

Mr Justice Dove said: "Hollie Ashurst was only 14 months old when her life was tragically cut short by her violent death at your hands Daniel Ashurst. She was, by all accounts, a bright and bubbly baby, happy and healthy: so much shines through the photographs which were taken of her on the morning not long before she died.

"She clearly brought joy to all those around her, and in particular her mother Leanne Thompson and her immediate family, whose lives were no doubt enriched by having her to care for and cherish. All that she could have become, with the potential of her whole life ahead of her to enjoy, all the promise and possibilities she had for loving and being loved, were extinguished by your actions on February 28, 2019.

"We shall never know, and in particular her mother and family will never know, the details of what happened to cause her all the many injuries her fragile body sustained from your actions. You have chosen not to be frank about what occurred when Hollie was in your care. You persisted in peddling a story immediately after Hollie's collapse, when she was critically ill, which could not possibly begin to explain the terrible injuries which you had inflicted.

"The lies continued in relation to what you told the jury: as they concluded, these injuries did not arise from a sequence of accidents or mishaps, but from persistent deliberately inflicted assaults. Whilst the prosecution sought to rely upon earlier episodes of abuse, I make clear that I cannot be sure that on the medical evidence (for the reasons set out by the defence in their written submissions to the court) that you had abused and injured her on an earlier occasion prior to February 28, 2019 (including the suggestion you were responsible for bite marks on her).

"Whilst it is clear that you were using cocaine at the time, alongside drinking alcohol, I am not sure that this was any influence over what happened that day. What I can be clear and sure about is that on that day you brutally assaulted her, causing her fatal head injuries along with bruising to her face, head, body and breaking her ankle. The love and devotion which I have no doubt you felt for her was completely betrayed and abandoned, along with the trust that Hollie and her mother had placed in you as her carer, when you lost your self-control and in a ferocious and protracted rage and assaulted, abused and killed her.

"I am satisfied that this was not a momentary loss of your temper, but a protracted series of assaults leading to a lengthy list of injuries involving multiple parts of her body.

"In addition to causing a forceful acceleration and deceleration or shaking injury giving rise to the triad of brain swelling, bilateral thin film subdural haematoma and retinal haemorrhaging you caused bleeding and stretching to her spinal cord and nerve roots, multiple bruises to her head and body and a broken ankle.

"For the avoidance of doubt, I am sure that her broken ankle occurred as a component of the many assaults which you subjected Hollie to that morning: the bending and twisting injury was not accidental it was caused by you. This voluminous list of physical injuries were not inflicted as part of a temporary fit of frustration or exasperation.

"The clinical findings in this case (set out in the evidence of the numerous medical experts called by the prosecution which are essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the gravity of this case) give a clear and consistent basis for the conclusion that the court can be sure that the extensive catalogue of injuries to her body arose from an undoubtedly lengthy and protracted sequence of physical abuse of her by you on that day. Her injuries demonstrate that she was assaulted repeatedly. She was a very vulnerable child, who was completely dependant upon you; anyone hearing of this case would be appalled at your behaviour and express disbelief at how a father could treat his child as you treated Hollie.

"There is no doubt that Hollie's death has had a devastating impact upon her mother and her immediate family. All those whose lives were touched by her short time with us will have been and continue to be, bereft. They will have difficulty accepting that she has passed away so young, let alone in these circumstances. The place that she took in their lives can never be filled. No sentence that I can pass on to you will bring her back. They will miss her to the end of their days; each Christmas when other families are celebrating, I have no doubt that they will be mourning her and remembering her birthday on Christmas Eve. Family occasions will be marked without her and not enriched by her presence. All this anguish and sorrow has been caused by you.

"I accept that there is some mitigation in your case. It is accepted that you were suffering from a diagnosed mental illness at the time and taking medication for that. I do not accept, however, that this condition played any material role in your commission of this offence and there is no psychiatric or psychological evidence to support the contention that it may have done.

"Indeed, it is difficult to evaluate the real extent of this illness in circumstances where you stated in your evidence that you were deliberately exaggerating your symptoms in conversations with mental health professionals at the time to reinforce your benefits claim, I take account of your mental ill-health but only give it limited weight. You were a man of good character, against whom there had been no previous episode of violence.

"You were clearly well capable of looking after Hollie and no safeguarding concerns existed in relation to you caring for her, and you had done so regularly prior to this incitement without any misgivings on anyone's behalf. What occurred was not part of a lengthy campaign of abuse over previous days or weeks. I accept that what happened on that day was out of character and that there was nothing which could have foreshadowed your behaviour on February 28. It follows that this was not a premeditated offence. You have now shown remorse and will have to live with what you have done for the rest of your days.

"In sentencing you I have to apply the Sentencing Council's guidelines for offences of manslaughter. As the guidelines point out, the harm in a case involving the death of a person could not be greater. In terms of culpability I am satisfied that the assaults which you inflicted on Hollie clearly were an act which carried a high risk of death or serious injury which ought to have been obvious to you; the culpability is therefore category B.

"In accordance with the guidelines this offence therefore has a starting point of 12 years with a category range of eight to 16 years imprisonment. I have set out the mitigation available to you above. The seriousness of the offence is aggravated by the vulnerability of Hollie by virtue of her very young age and dependence upon you as her carer. You were also in a position of trust in respect of her but there is clear overlap between this factor and her vulnerability and I must be careful to avoid double counting.

"However, in my view her very young age and vulnerability are very seriously aggravating features of your case. I have taken all these factors and those referred to in the submissions of both the prosecution and defence in arriving at the appropriate sentence in your case.

"There are no realistic grounds to believe that you fulfil the statutory definition of a 'dangerous' offender and in my view the justice of the case will be met by the imposition of a determinate sentence of imprisonment. The sentence which I impose in your case is one of 12 years. You will serve half that sentence before you are eligible for release and you will be credited with the 358 days you have spent on remand awaiting your trial."