King v Darryl Haughey

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the sentence imposed on the Appellant who pleaded guilty to four offences, including one count of non-fatal strangulation (NFS) contrary to section 28 of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (NI) 2022. The NFS offence is relatively new in Northern Ireland, with no existing sentencing guidelines. The sentencing judge imposed determinate sentences totaling 32 months for NFS and additional sentences for related offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH), threatening to kill, and criminal damage.

The events arose from a prolonged episode of domestic violence occurring between the evening of 23 August 2023 and the afternoon of 24 August 2023. The Appellant, intoxicated and verbally abusive, assaulted the injured party (IP) multiple times by grabbing her throat, headbutting, and threatening to kill her. The assaults included non-fatal strangulation and caused physical injuries such as bleeding and a split lip. The IP’s sister was ordered to leave initially but returned to help end the incident, after which the Appellant was arrested.

Initially charged with nine offences aggravated by domestic abuse under the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, the Appellant pleaded guilty to all counts on 10 May 2024, after the IP and her sister withdrew from participation. The sentencing judge considered the Appellant's background, including a history of alcohol dependency, mental health issues, prior convictions for violence against partners, and previous participation in behavioural programmes.

In sentencing, the judge identified aggravating factors such as the Appellant's relevant criminal record, the prolonged nature of the assaults, failure to change behaviour despite prior interventions, and substance abuse. Mitigating factors included remorse and the guilty plea. The judge set a starting point of 36 months for NFS, increased by 12 months due to the statutory domestic abuse aggravator, then reduced by one-third for the plea, resulting in an effective 32-month sentence for NFS.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of 36 months for the NFS offence was excessive, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the application of the statutory domestic abuse aggravator, particularly regarding double counting and the methodology of applying the uplift.
3. Whether the one-third reduction for the guilty plea was appropriate or whether a greater reduction should have been applied given the circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point of 36 months was too high, relying on comparative case law from England & Wales and New Zealand, which have lower maximum sentences and different sentencing regimes for NFS.
• The absence of loss of consciousness or other severe physical consequences should have resulted in a lower starting point or an uplift only where harm was more significant.
• The sentencing judge erred by treating repeated instances of strangulation as aggravating when only one count of NFS remained after plea negotiations, arguing that this amounted to a mischaracterisation of the facts.
• The judge improperly double counted aggravating features by considering both the Appellant's previous convictions and his prior completion of probation courses as separate aggravators.
• The judge failed to give sufficient mitigating weight to the Appellant's personal circumstances including ADHD, PTSD from a prior traumatic event, mental health issues, and alcohol addiction.
• The one-third plea reduction was insufficient, as the Appellant pleaded guilty at a time when key prosecution witnesses had withdrawn, significantly aiding the Crown’s case.
• The judge’s approach to the statutory domestic abuse aggravator was mechanistic and risked double counting, as the domestic context was difficult to discount from the starting point calculation.

Crown's Arguments

• The sentencing starting point was appropriate, reflecting the serious nature of the offence and the legislative intent to deter domestic violence, supported by the high maximum sentence in Northern Ireland.
• Evidence of loss of consciousness or visible injury is not required to establish high harm in NFS cases, as the offence encompasses psychological harm and the risk of catastrophic injury.
• The judge properly considered repeated strangulation behaviour as part of the overall violent episode, regardless of the formal charge count.
• There was no double counting of aggravating factors; previous convictions and prior interventions address different aspects of culpability and rehabilitation potential.
• The sentencing judge appropriately balanced the mitigating personal circumstances against the seriousness of the offending.
• The one-third plea reduction was generous given the circumstances of the plea and the difficulties faced by the prosecution.
• The sequential approach to applying the statutory domestic abuse aggravator was correct and ensured the aggravator was treated as a distinct statutory uplift.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by acknowledging the novelty of the NFS offence in Northern Ireland and the absence of local sentencing guidelines. It emphasized that the higher maximum sentence of 14 years in Northern Ireland reflects legislative intent to provide greater protection and deterrence against domestic violence, distinguishing it from other jurisdictions with lower maxima.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the starting point was excessive, noting that the medium level of harm justified a starting point of 36 months. It stressed that visible injuries or loss of consciousness are not required to establish high harm, recognizing the psychological and long-term physical impacts of strangulation supported by research and expert evidence.

Regarding the repeated strangulation argument, the Court held that the judge was entitled to consider the repeated acts of strangulation behavior within the overall violent episode, notwithstanding the formal charge count, and that the term was used in its ordinary meaning rather than a strict legal sense.

The Court dismissed the double counting argument, explaining that previous convictions and prior participation in intervention courses address different sentencing considerations: culpability and rehabilitation potential, respectively.

On mitigating factors, the Court recognized the judge’s discretion and concluded that the personal circumstances were appropriately weighed against the gravity of the offending and statutory sentencing objectives.

Concerning the plea reduction, the Court found the one-third discount to be generous given the circumstances, including the withdrawal of key witnesses and the timing of the plea, with no legal error in the judge’s assessment.

With respect to the statutory domestic abuse aggravator, the Court endorsed the judge’s sequential approach but recommended a modified order of steps. It concluded the correct methodology is to:

1. Identify the lead offence and calculate the starting point excluding the aggravator and plea.
2. Apply the plea reduction to that starting point.
3. Apply the statutory domestic abuse aggravator uplift to the reduced sentence as the final step.

Applying this method to the present case would have resulted in a slightly higher sentence (36 months) than actually imposed (32 months). However, the Court considered it fair to leave the sentence unchanged given the absence of prior guidance and the circumstances.

Finally, the Court provided guidance for future sentencing of NFS offences, confirming that a starting point of 36 months is appropriate for medium harm cases, with higher sentences justified by more severe harm. It underscored the importance of treating the statutory domestic abuse aggravator as a distinct uplift that should not be diluted by plea reductions, to maintain the deterrent effect and comply with statutory recording obligations.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the appeal and upheld the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s sentences, including the 32-month sentence for non-fatal strangulation, remain in place. The Court clarified the proper methodology for applying the statutory domestic abuse aggravator in sentencing, providing important guidance for future cases involving this offence in Northern Ireland. No new precedent altering sentencing principles was set beyond endorsing the legislative intent and appropriate sentencing approach for this new offence.