header-logo header-logo

Sentencing Council guidelines may consider impact of strangulation & suffocation

15 May 2024
Issue: 8071 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Offenders convicted of non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation could receive up to four years and six months in prison

The offences were introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and came into force in June 2022. The statutory maximum sentence is five years in prison, or seven years where certain aggravating factors exist.

Non-fatal strangulation occurs when a person intentionally strangles or affects their victim’s ability to breathe in an attempt to control or intimidate them—for example, by using a headlock or a ligature around the neck, or placing their foot or knee on the neck.

Non-fatal suffocation occurs when a person uses unlawful force on a victim, whether intentionally or recklessly, that affects the victim’s ability to breathe. No physical injuries need be caused for the offence to be committed. 

Under the draft Sentencing Council guidelines, there is high culpability if the act is sustained or repeated, or a ligature is used thus indicating specific intention to cause fear or harm. Lesser culpability could be demonstrated by a ‘very brief incident and voluntary desistance’, excessive self-defence, or where the perpetrator has a mental disorder or learning disability.

For low-culpability offences that do not cause the victim severe physical or psychological injury, judges could impose a high-level community order.

Currently, there are no specific sentencing guidelines for these offences, so the courts apply principles from the Court of Appeal judgment R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452.

Judge Rosa Dean, Sentencing Council lead for the guideline, said: ‘Strangulation or suffocation are very serious offences and can create a real and justified fear of death, causing the victim to experience a high degree of psychological harm from the encounter, even where no physical injuries are visible.’ The consultation ends on 14 August.

Issue: 8071 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Arc Pensions Law—Richard Meers

Arc Pensions Law—Richard Meers

Pensions litigation team announces senior associate hire

Burges Salmon—Neil Demuth

Burges Salmon—Neil Demuth

Firm appoints new chief financial officer

Anthony Collins—Sue Bearman

Anthony Collins—Sue Bearman

Social purpose firm announces director hire plus eight promotions

NEWS
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Human rights lawyers, social justice champion, co-founder of the law firm Bindmans, and NLJ columnist Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC has died at the age of 92 years
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll