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: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll