Reda, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 6 December 2023, in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook before Her Honour Judge Canavan, the Appellant pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm on 6 November 2022, contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. On 27 December 2023, the Appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 25 December 2023, intentional strangulation, and common assault of an emergency worker. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentencing.

On 26 February 2024, the Appellant was sentenced by Miss Recorder Sadd to a total of 4 years and 2 months' imprisonment. This comprised concurrent sentences of 32 months for intentional strangulation, 12 months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and 4 weeks for common assault of an emergency worker, with a consecutive term of 18 months for the section 20 offence. The Appellant appealed the sentence with leave of a single judge.

The offences arose from a domestic relationship between the Appellant and the victim. On 4 November 2022, after a confrontation at the victim's home involving discovery of suspected infidelity, the Appellant forcibly entered the property, assaulted the victim with a dumbbell causing significant injuries including a severe black eye, bruises, bite marks, and scratches. On 25 December 2023, while on bail with a condition not to contact the victim, the Appellant assaulted her again, including punching, kicking, and strangulation, causing further injuries and damage to the victim’s home. Police found the Appellant inside the trashed property, where he was verbally abusive and resisted arrest.

The Appellant was 31 years old with a history of 14 convictions for 38 offences, including prior assaults and offences involving emergency workers. A pre-sentence report noted the Appellant’s remorse, mental health diagnoses of emotionally unstable personality disorder and ADHD, and a difficult childhood. The report assessed him as posing a medium risk of reoffending generally, but a high risk of further domestic abuse and serious harm to known persons.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 32 months' imprisonment for intentional strangulation was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the starting point established in R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452.
2. Whether the overall sentence of 4 years and 2 months' imprisonment, including concurrent and consecutive terms, was disproportionate given the mitigating factors and the principle of totality.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant did not dispute the categorisation of offences, the guilty plea credits, or the principle of consecutive sentencing for the 2022 offence.
• The Appellant contended that the sentence for intentional strangulation was effectively equivalent to 48 months' imprisonment after trial, which was excessive.
• It was argued that the Recorder erred by adding 30 months to the 18-month starting point from R v Cook for the strangulation offence.
• The Appellant submitted that the sentence failed to sufficiently account for mitigating factors and the principle of totality, resulting in a manifestly excessive overall sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452	Establishes the serious nature and sentencing starting point (18 months custody) for intentional strangulation offences.	The court used R v Cook as the starting point for sentencing the intentional strangulation offence, considering aggravating and mitigating factors to assess whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court clarified that the section 47 offence was correctly treated within category 2B for culpability and harm to avoid double counting the strangulation offence, applying a starting point of 36 weeks' custody and arriving at 12 months after credit for the guilty plea.

The court accepted the 4 weeks' sentence for assault of an emergency worker as appropriate and noted a consecutive sentence was justifiable.

Domestic abuse was a serious aggravating factor beyond the fact that the offences occurred in the victim’s home.

Sentencing could have been structured differently, but the court’s primary focus was whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court emphasized the serious nature of intentional strangulation, referencing R v Cook, and acknowledged the victim’s experience of feeling as if she was going to die, the sustained nature of the attacks, abuse of power, prior assaults, and breach of bail conditions as significant aggravating factors.

The concurrent sentences for the offences on 25 December 2023 significantly aggravated the strangulation offence. Despite mitigation, the 32-month sentence for intentional strangulation was not deemed manifestly excessive, though severe.

The consecutive 18-month sentence for the section 20 offence was appropriate considering the domestic context, totality, and mitigation, and was not manifestly excessive.

Overall, the court concluded the total sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s sentence of 4 years and 2 months' imprisonment stands as imposed. The court found no error in the sentencing approach or the application of legal principles, including the use of R v Cook as the starting point for intentional strangulation. No new precedent was established; the decision confirms the appropriateness of the sentencing framework applied in serious domestic abuse cases involving multiple offences and breaches of bail conditions.