Introduction

The case of R v Stari [2023] EWCA Crim 1409 addresses critical questions surrounding the jurisdiction of English courts in prosecuting offenses that have both domestic and international elements. The central issue revolves around whether the English courts possess the authority to adjudicate controlling or coercive behavior under the Serious Crime Act 2015 while some actions constituting the offense occurred outside the United Kingdom, specifically in Serbia.

The parties involved are Norbert Stari, the appellant convicted of controlling or coercive behavior, and his former partner, referred to as ET. The case encompasses allegations of sustained emotional, verbal, and physical abuse, along with coercive tactics that extended beyond the UK’s borders.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed Norbert Stari's appeal against his conviction and sentence for controlling or coercive behavior under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, arguing that significant elements of his alleged misconduct occurred outside the UK. The Court, however, upheld the conviction by applying the "substantial measure" principle, affirming that enough of the abusive behavior had domestic ties to warrant English jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was denied, and the original sentence of 30 months' imprisonment was maintained.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases to establish the principles governing territorial jurisdiction:

• R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 4) [2004] EWCA Crim 631;
• Lawal v Adeyinka [2021] EWHC 2486 (QB);
• R v Laskowski [2023] EWCA Crim 494;
• Treacy v DPP [1971] 1 AC 537;
• R v Sheppard and Whittle [2010] EWCA Crim 65;
• R v Martin [2014] EWCA Crim;

These cases collectively underpin the "substantial measure" principle, which allows UK courts to claim jurisdiction if a significant portion of the criminal conduct occurred within the UK, even if other elements transpired abroad.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the "substantial measure" test to determine jurisdiction. This involves assessing whether a significant part of the alleged criminal conduct occurred within the UK. In R v Stari, although part of the coercive behavior (specifically the stranding of ET and her children in Serbia) occurred abroad, the court found that substantial aspects of the abusive conduct—such as sending threatening messages, withholding passports, and compliance with UK family court orders—took place within the UK.

The judgment emphasized that the nature of controlling or coercive behavior is inherently connected to its impact on the victim. Since the abusive actions had significant effects both domestically and internationally, they fell within the purview of UK jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the appellant's reliance on Lawal v Adeyinka, clarifying that the circumstances of that civil case did not negate the applicability of the "substantial measure" principle in a criminal context.

Impact

The decision in R v Stari reinforces the capacity of UK courts to prosecute controlling and coercive behavior even when parts of the conduct have an international dimension. This has significant implications for cases involving transnational elements, ensuring that victims are protected regardless of geographical boundaries.

Additionally, the judgment clarifies the application of the "substantial measure" principle, providing a robust framework for future cases where crimes span multiple jurisdictions. It underscores the importance of considering both the location of the conduct and its effects on the victim when determining jurisdiction.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Measure Principle

The "substantial measure" principle is a legal doctrine used to determine whether a court has jurisdiction over a case involving actions that span multiple jurisdictions. Under this principle, if a significant portion of the conduct constituting the offense occurs within a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction may claim authority to prosecute the offense, even if some elements take place elsewhere.

Controlling or Coercive Behavior

Under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, controlling or coercive behavior in an intimate or family relationship involves repeated or continuous actions that exert control or induce fear and distress in the victim. This can include emotional manipulation, threats of violence, and other forms of abuse that significantly impact the victim's daily life and well-being.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. In criminal law, jurisdiction can be based on territoriality (where the offense occurred), nationality, or other factors. The determination of jurisdiction is crucial in cases involving actions that cross international boundaries.

Conclusion

The R v Stari [2023] EWCA Crim 1409 judgment is a pivotal affirmation of the English courts' ability to prosecute controlling and coercive behavior that encompasses both domestic and international elements. By upholding the "substantial measure" principle, the Court of Appeal underscored the necessity of protecting victims regardless of where parts of the abusive conduct occur.

This decision not only provides clarity on the scope of jurisdiction in similar cases but also reinforces the broader legal framework aimed at curbing domestic abuse and coercive control. As a result, it sets a significant precedent for future cases involving transnational aspects of controlling behavior, ensuring that victims receive comprehensive legal protection.