Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily references the recent case of R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452. In Cook, the Court of Appeal established a significant precedent by setting an 18-month custody starting point specifically for the offence of intentional strangulation, recognizing the inherent harm in such acts beyond what traditional assault guidelines addressed. Additionally, R v Hartland, an Attorney General's reference case, was cited, reinforcing that the absence of specific harm in strangulation does not mitigate the severity of the offence due to the inherent risks involved.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal in R v Butler meticulously analyzed the sentencing guidelines in light of the new precedent set by Cook. The Court identified that intentional strangulation should be treated distinctly from general assault offences due to its severe and inherent risk of harm. Consequently, the court adopted the 18-month custody starting point for intentional strangulation, as prescribed in Cook. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle of totality, ensuring that the combined sentences for multiple offences are proportionate to the overall criminality of the conduct without doubling the culpability for similar harms.

The judge also considered aggravating factors, including the presence of children, the domestic setting of the offences, the appellant's previous convictions, and the breach of a community order. These factors justified an increase in the sentencing starting point from 18 months to no less than 30 months. Additionally, the assault occasioning actual bodily harm was categorized appropriately as a category A2 offence, further supporting the cumulative sentencing approach without resulting in a manifestly excessive punishment.

Impact

This judgment solidifies the legal framework for sentencing in cases involving intentional strangulation, particularly within domestic violence contexts. By referencing and adhering to the precedents set in Cook, the Court of Appeal ensures consistency and clarity in sentencing practices. The decision underscores the judiciary's recognition of the severe impact of strangulation, promoting more substantial and appropriate sentencing for such offences. This will likely influence future cases by providing a clear guideline that intentional strangulation carries a higher custodial starting point, ensuring that sentences reflect the serious nature of the offence.

Sentencing Categories

The sentencing categories, such as A1, A2, and B2, are part of a structured framework used by courts to determine appropriate punishments based on the severity and culpability of offences.

• A1 Offence: Represents the most severe category of personal harm offences, typically involving serious harm or circumstances that greatly aggravate the offence.
• A2 Offence: Involves significant harm but not reaching the gravity of A1. In this case, assault occasioning actual bodily harm was categorized as A2.
• B2 Offence: Pertains to offences of a lower severity compared to A categories, where B2 indicates moderate culpability or harm.

Totality Principle

The principle of totality ensures that when multiple offences are committed by the same offender, the combined sentence reflects the overall criminality without being unduly harsh. It prevents the cumulative sentences from becoming disproportionately severe by considering the totality of the offences rather than the sum of individual sentences.

Double Counting

Double counting refers to the improper practice of considering the same aspect of an offence more than once when determining sentencing. In the context of this case, the Court of Appeal emphasized avoiding double counting the strangulation offence when it concurrently falls under assault occasioning actual bodily harm to ensure fairness and proportionality in sentencing.