header-logo header-logo

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

Sentencing Council guidelines may consider impact of strangulation & suffocation

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll