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

Fieldfisher Ireland LLP—Dermot McEvoy

Fieldfisher Ireland LLP—Dermot McEvoy

Dublin disputes team announces strategic partner appointment

DWF—four appointments

DWF—four appointments

Firm strengthens in-house advocacy with four new pupil appointments

Shakespeare Martineau—Fergus Spowart & Fin Campbell

Shakespeare Martineau—Fergus Spowart & Fin Campbell

Scottish practice expands with new solicitor hire and trainee qualification

NEWS
MPs have expressed disappointment after the government confirmed it will not consider updating the parental leave system until at least 2027
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, shares his views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in this week's NLJ with William Raven
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
back-to-top-scroll