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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll