Factual and Procedural Background
On 9 December 2025 the Appellant was convicted at The Magistrates' Court of one offence of intentional strangulation contrary to section 75A(1)(a) and (5) of the Serious Crime Act 2015. He was committed for sentence on 3 February 2026 and, on 27 February 2026 at The Crown Court, was sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed that sentence with the leave of a single judge. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on 9 June 2026.
The offending occurred on 8 June 2024. On that day the Appellant, his Partner, the Victim and the Victim's parents had been drinking at local public houses. After returning to their respective flats in The Block of Flats, the Appellant became aggressive at a Public House, used abusive language toward his Partner and threatened the Victim. Later the Appellant struck the Victim, pushed her to the ground twice, grabbed and squeezed her throat until she could not breathe, and punched her. The Victim suffered reddening to her neck, reported significant ongoing psychological effects in an Impact Statement (including impaired ability to leave the house, sleep disturbance and need for therapy), and the police were called.
The pre-sentence report noted the Appellant's continued denial, assessed risk concerns and proposed a suspended sentence with rehabilitative requirements; the sentencing judge described the offence as "really serious", placed it in category 1B of the relevant sentencing guideline, applied an aggravating factor of intoxication and identified lack of previous convictions as the principal mitigation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence under the sentencing guideline (specifically whether the harm fell within category 1B rather than category 2B) such that the starting point and resulting sentence were manifestly excessive.
- Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient credit for mitigation (age, previous good character and medical condition) so that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The judge wrongly categorised the degree of psychological harm as sufficient for harm category 1; the guideline requires very high harm to be placed in category 1 and the Victim's Impact Statement lacked corroboration.
- The case properly fell within category 2B of the guideline, with a lower starting point and range.
- The judge failed to reduce the sentence sufficiently for mitigation: the Appellant's age (60), previous good character, ill-health including a bleed to the brain, caring responsibilities for an ill mother, and steps taken to address alcohol use warranted a greater discount.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court of Appeal analysed the sentencing judge's decision and the Appellant's submissions without finding error. The court accepted the judge's factual findings about the assault (slapping, punching, twice knocked to the ground, and strangulation sufficient to cause inability to breathe) and the Victim's described psychological harm as set out in the Impact Statement, noting corroboration was not required for the judge to rely on that statement.
The court explained that the sentencing guideline's categories are not rigid "tramlines" and that the judge was entitled to treat the harm as falling within category 1. The court further held that, even if the harm were categorised as category 2, the facts (nature of the assault, intoxication and the significant, long-lasting impact) would justify a substantial uplift from the category 2B starting point.
As to mitigation, the court observed that the judge had been aware of and taken account of the Appellant's age, medical condition (as recorded in the pre-sentence report) and absence of previous convictions, and was therefore unpersuaded that the judge had failed properly to take mitigation into account.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence. The direct effect is that the Crown Court sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment is upheld. The opinion does not establish any new binding precedent beyond its application of the existing sentencing guideline to the facts of this case.