Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal against sentence brought with the leave of the single judge. On 27 October 2023, in the Crown Court at Stafford, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two offences: assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and intentional strangulation contrary to section 75A(1) and (5) of the Serious Crime Act 2015. A third count of common assault was ordered to lie on the file and has no bearing on this appeal.
On 10 January 2024, the Appellant was sentenced by HHJ Hobson to 12 months' imprisonment for the first offence and 27 months' imprisonment concurrently for the second offence, resulting in a total sentence of 27 months' imprisonment. A statutory surcharge order was also imposed.
The complainant was the Appellant's partner of nine years, with whom he had four children aged between 18 months and seven years, and a stepchild aged 11. At the time of the incident, the complainant was pregnant. On 23 September 2023, following an argument earlier that evening, the Appellant and complainant argued at home in the presence of their two older daughters. The complainant was found on the floor with the Appellant on top of her, strangling her and biting her cheek. The eldest daughter intervened to stop the assault. Police attended and noted the complainant’s injuries and the upset children.
The Appellant was arrested and admitted to consuming significant alcohol but claimed no recollection of the assault, though he did not dispute causing the injuries. The complainant indicated she would end the relationship due to fear of further violence.
At sentencing, the judge considered aggravating factors including the presence of young children, the location of the offence in the victim's home, alcohol influence, and the Appellant's prior violent convictions, albeit dated. Mitigating factors included no previous custodial sentences, efforts to reduce drinking, stable employment, and family ties.
Progress reports prepared for the appeal noted the Appellant's failure to acknowledge the seriousness of his offence and lack of remorse, though his counsel submitted that he did feel genuine remorse and wished to rebuild family relationships. Additional documents filed included a telephone transcription where the Appellant accepted responsibility and a psychiatric report diagnosing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in selecting the starting point of three years' imprisonment after trial.
- Whether the facts of the offence justified the length of the sentence imposed.
- Whether insufficient weight was given to the precedent set in R v Borsodi.
- Whether the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider mitigating factors presented by the Appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The sentencing judge selected too high a starting point after trial (three years' imprisonment).
- The facts of the offence did not warrant the length of the sentence imposed.
- The court did not give sufficient weight to the judgment in R v Borsodi.
- The judge failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors, including the Appellant's efforts to address offending behaviour, stable accommodation and employment, the recent birth of a child, and his wish to restore family relationships.
- The strangulation was short-lived and, initially, it was submitted that the Appellant voluntarily desisted (later clarified that voluntary desistance was not accepted, but the incident was short-lived).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Cook [2023] EWCA 452 |
Provided guidance on sentencing for intentional strangulation, including a typical starting point of 18 months' custody. |
The court applied Cook’s guidance on starting points and aggravating factors, noting that the judge appropriately increased the sentence above 18 months due to circumstances. |
| R v Borsodi [2023] EWCA 899 |
Clarified that exceptional circumstances are not required for a suspended sentence in intentional strangulation cases. |
The court considered Borsodi and noted that the sentencing judge had discretion, but the sentence here was appropriate and not capable of suspension. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged the submissions by the Appellant’s counsel but concluded that the sentence was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The judge was entitled to find the aggravating and mitigating factors justified a notional three-year sentence after trial. The presence of two offences required careful application of the totality principle to avoid double counting, which the judge observed. The biting incident was independently serious, warranting a concurrent sentence, and the offences’ occurrence in the victim’s home with young children present aggravated the seriousness.
The court accepted the credit given for the guilty plea was appropriate. The total effective sentence of 27 months was above two years and not suitable for suspension. The court therefore dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence as proportionate to the offending and circumstances.
Holding and Implications
The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.
The court’s decision confirms the appropriateness of the sentencing judge’s assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors and the application of the totality principle in cases involving multiple offences. The ruling reinforces that sentences for intentional strangulation, particularly in the presence of children and in a domestic setting, can justifiably exceed the typical starting point when circumstances warrant. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing authorities.