Victim Impact Statements Can Found Psychological-Harm Categorisation in Strangulation Sentencing and Guideline Categories Are Not “Tramlines”

1. Introduction

The appellant (aged 60 at sentence and of previous good character) appealed a custodial sentence imposed for intentional strangulation committed during an alcohol-fuelled confrontation outside neighbouring flats. The victim intervened to protect the appellant’s partner and was then slapped, knocked to the ground, throttled until she could not breathe, knocked down again, and punched.

The principal issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge wrongly categorised harm (treating the psychological impact as sufficiently serious to place the case in the highest harm category within the guideline), and whether insufficient weight was given to mitigation (age, health, caring responsibilities, and alleged steps to reduce alcohol intake).

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.
• It held the judge was entitled to rely on the victim impact statement when assessing psychological harm; corroboration was not required.
• It reaffirmed that guideline categories are not “tramlines”; even if harm were arguably one category lower, the facts justified a substantial uplift within the lower category range.
• The court found no error in the treatment of mitigation; the judge was aware of age and medical issues and properly credited previous good character.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment did not cite any prior authorities by name. However, it relied on a well-established appellate approach expressed in many earlier sentencing decisions: that Sentencing Council guideline categories and starting points guide rather than dictate outcome (captured here by the statement that they are not “tramlines”). This case applies that approach specifically to:

• the assessment of psychological harm based on a victim impact statement; and
• the appellate task in a manifest excess challenge where categorisation is disputed.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Nature of the offence and custody

The court emphasised the seriousness of the conduct: intoxication, aggression, multiple assaults, and strangulation causing inability to breathe. It was “rightly not suggested” that anything other than immediate custody was appropriate.

(b) Harm categorisation and the victim impact statement

The appellant argued the judge overstated psychological harm, contending that strangulation already involves high inherent harm and therefore the highest harm category requires something “very high indeed”, and that the victim’s impact account lacked corroboration.

The Court of Appeal rejected that submission. It held:

• The sentencing judge was entitled to rely on the victim impact statement to find a serious and enduring effect on daily functioning (work, leaving home, sleep, visiting family, and therapy).
• Corroboration was not necessary for the judge to accept and act upon the impact statement in assessing harm for guideline purposes.

(c) “Not tramlines”: categorisation versus outcome

The court’s key analytical move was to treat the categorisation debate as non-determinative. Even if the harm were not “severe” enough for the highest harm category, the court held there was a “clear, significant and long lasting impact” requiring a “substantial uplift” from the lower category starting point. It noted the lower-category range still extended up to three years, and concluded that the circumstances would have justified a starting point “in the region of” the higher-category starting point in any event.

In effect, the court endorsed a two-step sentencing logic:

• Use the guideline to anchor seriousness (starting point and range); then
• Apply fact-sensitive adjustments (including enduring psychological impact and intoxication) without treating the category label as dispositive.

(d) Mitigation and fresh medical material

The appellant relied on age, good character, ill-health (including a brain bleed), caring responsibilities for an ill parent, and reduced alcohol intake. A medical report before the Court of Appeal (but not the sentencing judge) supported the brain bleed history, though the condition was already recorded in the pre-sentence report. The Court of Appeal held the judge had properly considered age and health as presented, and had treated lack of convictions as the principal mitigant. There was no basis to conclude the sentence was manifestly excessive.

3.3 Impact

The decision is likely to be relied upon in strangulation and other violent-offence sentencing appeals for three practical propositions:

• Victim impact statements can be sufficient evidence for findings about psychological harm and functional impairment; a demand for corroboration will not usually succeed on appeal.
• Guideline categories are flexible tools: even if a different category might arguably apply, the appellate court may uphold the sentence where the facts justify an uplift within the correct range (or support a similar starting point).
• Mitigation arguments face a high bar on “manifest excess” appeals where the sentencing judge demonstrably had relevant matters in mind and the sentence sits comfortably within the guideline range.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Manifestly excessive”: the appeal test is not whether the Court of Appeal would have chosen a different sentence, but whether the sentence imposed is plainly outside the reasonable range.
• Guideline “starting point” and “range”: the starting point is the benchmark for a typical case in that category; the range shows the permitted band after factoring aggravating/mitigating features.
• Harm and culpability categories: guidelines often separate (i) the offender’s blameworthiness (culpability) from (ii) the consequences and seriousness of injury/impact (harm), including psychological harm.
• “Categories are not tramlines”: courts are not mechanically bound by category labels; they must sentence according to the overall seriousness revealed by the facts, using the guideline as structured assistance.
• Victim Impact Statement (VIS): a victim’s account of the effect of the crime; this case confirms a VIS may be relied upon to assess psychological harm without external corroboration, depending on context.

5. Conclusion

[2026] EWCA Crim 802 confirms that, in sentencing for intentional strangulation, courts may rely on a victim impact statement to assess serious and lasting psychological harm without requiring corroboration. It also reinforces that guideline categorisation is not a rigid exercise: even where categorisation is debated, sentencing remains a holistic evaluation of harm, culpability, and lasting impact within the guideline structure. The appeal failed because the sentence was firmly rooted in the facts, within the guideline range, and the mitigation was not shown to have been overlooked or undervalued.