“Humphreys” Guideline:
Immediate Custody for Coercive-Control Offences
Involving Strangulation & Prior Domestic Violence

1. Introduction

R v Humphreys ([2025] EWCA Crim 743) is the latest Attorney-General’s Reference to recalibrate sentencing for the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour under s.76 Serious Crime Act 2015. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), led by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, substituted an 18-month suspended sentence with a 28-month immediate custodial term. The judgment crystallises three key issues now likely to frame future sentencing:

1. The weight to be accorded to an incident of manual strangulation within a course of coercive conduct.
2. The impact of a Newton hearing that is resolved adversely to the offender on both credit for plea and overall sentence length.
3. The very limited circumstances in which suspension is permissible for serious domestic-abuse offending, especially where the offender is a repeat perpetrator.

“From whatever angle we approach the question of suspension, we return time and again to the seriousness of the offending … culminating in the incident of intentional strangulation by a man with the offender’s antecedents.” – Stuart-Smith LJ

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Attorney-General argued the Crown Court sentence was unduly lenient.
• The Court of Appeal agreed, holding the trial judge:
  • Insufficiently uplifted the guideline starting point despite numerous A1 factors.
  • Granted excessive (⅓) credit for a plea entered on the day of trial and after an adverse Newton hearing (proper credit: 5 %).
  • Erred in suspending the sentence; immediate custody was the “only” proportionate disposal.
• The CA fixed a notional sentence of 30 months, reduced by 5 % to 28 months, and ordered it be served immediately.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents & Authorities Cited / Applied

• Sentencing Council Guideline: Controlling or Coercive Behaviour (2022)
  Categories A–C (culpability) / 1–3 (harm) drove the starting point (A1 = 2½ yrs).
• Sentencing Council Guideline: Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea
  Provided that late pleas and contested Newton hearings justify steep credit reduction (typically to 5–10 %).
• Sentencing Council Guideline: Imposition of Community & Custodial Sentences
  Sets out the “realistic prospect of rehabilitation / exceptional factors” test for suspension.
• Attorney-General’s References jurisprudence – e.g. R v Povey [2019] EWCA Crim 39; principle that suspending sentences for serious domestic violence is rarely appropriate.
• Section 9 Criminal Justice Act 1988 – statutory power for the Attorney-General to refer unduly lenient sentences.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Gravity Assessment
   The offending was “serious domestic abuse stretching over almost six months” with multiple A1 indicators plus aggravated strangulation. Combined with a previous s.20 GBH on a partner, the bilan demanded an uplift to at least 3½ years before any discount.
2. Plea Credit
   Because the defendant pleaded guilty only on the morning of trial and actively contested a Newton hearing, normal one-third credit had to fall to 5 %.
3. Suspension Test
   Although there existed “some” prospect of rehabilitation, the court stressed:
   • Seriousness alone can make immediate custody inevitable (Imposition Guideline).
   • The public-protection dimension outweighed tentative rehabilitative prospects.
   • Previous failure on a suspended sentence (the 2016 GBH) counted heavily against new suspension.
4. Resentencing Outcome
   Having set 30 months as the appropriate term, the court refused to let the suspension cut-off (24 months) distort the proper punitive length. Thus 28 months immediate imprisonment was imposed.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

• Strangulation within Coercive Control – Any instance of manual strangulation, even if charged only as part of a wider coercive-control indictment, should trigger a substantial uplift.
• Suspended Sentences – Trial judges must give detailed reasons if suspending a domestic-abuse sentence above the guideline starting point, especially where:
  • Persistent course of conduct,
  • Prior domestic-violence convictions, or
  • Victim impact is long-lasting.
  Failure may invite Attorney-General intervention.
• Plea & Newton Hearings – Defence teams will rethink the tactical value of late guilty pleas coupled with disputed facts: an adverse Newton finding now virtually extinguishes credit.
• Procedural Practice – Prosecution and defence must ensure sentencing judges are given full Newton-hearing outcomes; omissions can distort sentencing and be corrected only on appeal.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Controlling or coercive behaviour (s.76 SCA 2015): A course of conduct that causes a partner/family member to fear violence or suffer serious alarm or distress.
• Newton Hearing: A mini-trial held after a guilty plea when prosecution and defence disagree over important facts that affect sentence. The judge hears evidence and makes factual findings.
• Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS): A custodial or community sentence so low it falls outside the reasonable range. The Attorney-General can refer it to the Court of Appeal, which can increase it.
• Suspended Sentence: A custodial term ‘hung’ over the offender’s head. As long as conditions are met and no further offences are committed, the jail time is not served. Suspension is not available for terms above two years.
• Plea Credit: Reduction in sentence given for saving court time/energy by pleading guilty. Full credit (⅓) requires an early indication; lateness or post-Newton pleas sharply reduce it.

5. Conclusion

Humphreys delivers a clear, practical message to first-instance courts: serious coercive-control offences, particularly those featuring strangulation and a history of domestic violence, almost invariably warrant immediate custody. Rehabilitation prospects, while relevant, cannot eclipse the punitive and protective purposes of sentencing. Moreover, the decision tightens the relationship between Newton hearings and plea credit, underscoring the cost of contesting key facts only to lose.

For prosecutors, the case is a roadmap for arguing uplifts and resisting suspension. For defence practitioners, it signals that early, realistic pleas and genuine acceptance of responsibility are paramount. And for sentencing judges, it serves as a cautionary tale: full and accurate information about plea chronology and contested facts is indispensable to crafting lawful, proportionate sentences.

In the evolving landscape of domestic-abuse jurisprudence, Humphreys stands as a pivotal authority, fortifying victim protection and clarifying sentencing boundaries for the most insidious forms of intimate-partner violence.