New Sentencing Guidelines for Strangulation and Suffocation Offences
As of yesterday, 1st January 2025, specific guidance has been issued by the Sentencing Council for judges and Magistrates sentencing defendants convicted of non fatal strangulation and suffocation offences.
Sentencing guidelines exist for most offences, their purpose is to ensure a consistent and proportionate approach when sentencing offenders, creating a fairness in criminal proceedings. Prior to the introduction of the specific sentencing guidelines for non fatal strangulation
and suffocation offences
the court relied on a Court of Appeal judgement in the case of R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452, where it was indicated that an immediate custodial sentence would be appropriate in such cases, with a starting point of 18 months imprisonment.
The Government introduced specific offences of strangulation and suffocation under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021
to allow for suspects to be charged and prosecuted with a sufficiently serious offence even in the absence of physical injuries.
Section 70(1) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 inserted section 75A in the Serious Crime Act 2015, which created an offence of strangulation or suffocation. The 2021 Act also inserted a new section (section 29(1)(b) (a) in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998), creating the racially or religiously aggravated version of the offence.
The New Guidelines for Non Fatal Strangulation and Suffocation
| Category A | Category B | Category C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harm 1 | Starting Point: 3 years 6 months custody | Starting Point: 2 years 6 months custody | Starting Point: 1 year 6 month custody |
| Category Range: 2-4 years 6 months custody | Category Range: 1 year 6 months custody - 3 years 6 months custody | Category Range: 1 years custody - 3 years custody | |
| Harm 2 | Starting Point: 2 years 6 months custody | Starting Point: 1 year 6 months custody | 1 years custody |
| Category Range: 1 year 6 months custody - 3 years 6 months custody | Category Range: 1 years custody - 3 years custody | High level community order - 2 years 6 months custody |
Harm
When sentencing a defendant the court will firstly be required to establish the harm caused to the complainant. Harm is separated into two categories, level 1 harm caused is the most serious and would put a defendant in the higher sentencing brackets.
Harm Category 1 - A category 1 offence results in a severe physical injury or psychological condition which has a substantial and long-term effect on the victim’s ability to carry out their normal day-to-day activities or on their ability to work.
Harm Category 2 - All other cases
Culpability
The guideline defines culpability as follows:
Category A
- Sustained or repeated strangulation or suffocation
- Use of ligature
Category B
Cases falling between category A or C because:
- Factors in both high and lesser categories are present which balance each other out; and/or
- The offender’s culpability falls between the factors as described in high and lesser culpability
Category C
- Fleeting incident and voluntary resistance
- Excessive self-defence
- Mental disorder or learning disability, where linked to the commission of the offence
The guideline goes on to consider factors increasing seriousness and factors reducing seriousness, referred to as aggravating and mitigating factors. These factors will be considered in each case and can vary dependent on the circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of the defendant.
Aggravating Factors
Statutory Aggravating Factors:
- Previous convictions, having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
- Offence committed whilst on bail
- Offence motivated by, or demonstrating hostility based on any of the following characteristics or presumed characteristics of the victim: disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Other Aggravating Factors:
- Offence committed in domestic abuse context
- Victim isolated and unable to seek assistance
- Offence was committed against person providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services to the public
- History of violence or abuse towards victim by offender
- Victim pregnant at time of offence
- Presence of children
- Gratuitous degradation of victim
- Abuse of trust or power
- Any steps taken to prevent the victim reporting an incident, obtaining assistance and/or from assisting or supporting the prosecution
- Commission of offence whilst under the influence of alcohol/drugs
- Offence committed whilst on licence or post sentence supervision
- Failure to comply with current court orders
Factors Reducing Seriousness and Potentially Mitigate a Defendant's Position
- No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
- Remorse
- Good character and/or exemplary conduct
- History of significant violence or abuse towards the offender by the victim
- Age and/or lack of maturity
- Mental disorder or learning disability, where not linked to the commission of the offence
- Sole or primary carer for dependent relative(s)
- Pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal care
- Determination and/or demonstration of steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour
- Serious medical conditions requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
- Difficult and/or deprived background or personal circumstances
- Prospects of or in work, training or education
Non Fatal Strangulation Lawyers
Our team have a proven track record of successfully defending suspects accused of non fatal strangulation and/or suffocation. We apply a specialist and pro-active approach during police investigations by taking part in pre-charge engagement with the investigating police force, working with our client to advance their defence before charges are considered by the CPS. Also during court proceedings, working towards stopping a prosecution or reaching not guilty verdicts for our clients.
We offer a free initial consultation where we will discuss your case with you, your background and personal circumstances. Following our discussions our lawyers will put into place a carefully planned strategy to protect your position, legal rights and interests.
If you have been accused of an offence of non fatal strangulation or suffocation, let our team help you.
We Can Help With
Have you been charged with indecent image possession? Do you want to know how many cases get dropped? Read our latest article to learn more.
Understanding the difference between “consent” and “reasonable belief” can be key if you are being investigated or prosecuted for a sexual offence, where these two issues can arise. These are not just technical legal terms; they are real-world concepts that can affect the outcome of serious sexual abuse cases. At Eventum Legal, our aim is to help people grasp these important ideas so that they know where they stand, whether they’re seeking justice, facing an accusation, or just wanting to be informed. Consent and the Law: What Does It Mean? When it comes to sexual activity, the law makes it very clear that “consent” isn’t just about saying yes or no. Consent means agreeing by choice, having the freedom and capacity to make that choice, and being able to change your mind at any time, even if the sexual activity has begun. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that a person consents if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to do so. In practical terms, this means no one should be pressured, forced, or tricked into sex. If someone is too drunk, too scared, or otherwise unable to decide, they cannot legally give consent. This applies also to issues with mental capacity where someone may not have the understanding or ability to give informed consent. When establishing whether consent or reasonable belief applies, the courts examine everything that happened, how the people involved acted, what was said, their relationship, and whether any threats were made. It’s not about just hearing a yes or no, but about whether the agreement was truly given, freely and knowingly, at the time. Reasonable Belief: The Other Side of the Coin While “consent” focuses on the person on the receiving end of sexual activity, “reasonable belief” is about the perspective of the person accused of the crime. UK law says it’s not enough for someone to claim they thought the other person was consenting. The belief that consent existed must be reasonable; it must meet the standard of what a reasonable person would think in those circumstances. This comes down to two questions: did the accused genuinely believe the other person was consenting, and would a reasonable person, knowing what the accused knew and considering everything that happened, have reached the same conclusion? It’s not a defence to say, “I just thought it was okay,” if evidence, actions, or common sense didn’t back that belief up. Courts look at whether the accused checked for consent, paid attention to what was happening, and took steps to make sure everything was agreed upon. How the Law Applies These Concepts The distinction between consent and reasonable belief matters because everyone is responsible for ensuring that consent is present, not just assuming or hoping it is. The prosecution in a sexual offence case has to prove that there was no consent or that the accused did not have a reasonable belief that consent existed. To judge this, courts examine the context: Were both people sober and able to make decisions? Was there clear, positive agreement? Did one person ignore signs of hesitation or discomfort? In cases where someone is very intoxicated or unable to communicate, the law presumes that there is no consent, and it is challenging for anyone to claim a reasonable belief otherwise. However, where alcohol is in question the issue can become complex as we all have difference alcohol tolerances, what may be too drunk to one person, could be different to the other. Therefore, working to establish the intoxication and affect is crucial for lawyers in some cases. In cases where it can be proven that that someone was too drunk to speak or move, and the accused says they thought there was consent just because the person didn’t say “no,” the court is unlikely to accept that as reasonable. The law expects people to check in with their partner, look for positive signs, and stop if there’s any doubt. Clearing Up Common Myths Many misunderstandings exist about how consent and reasonable belief work in real life. One myth is that if someone doesn’t say “no,” they must have agreed. The absence of a “no” is not the same as a “yes.” Another myth is that if two people are in a relationship or have had sex before, consent is always assumed. Every sexual act requires consent, every time. Some people also believe that as long as they honestly thought there was consent, that’s enough. But the law sets a higher bar: the belief has to be reasonable, meaning it must be backed up by what happened and what a reasonable person would think. In our digital age, misunderstandings can easily happen through text or online communication. Courts are aware of this and look at all available evidence, including messages and social media, to determine what happened. Other avenues of evidence exploration can include CCTV footage and witnesses. Why These Legal Standards Matter The way UK law approaches consent and reasonable belief has changed over time. In the past, people could argue they had an “honest” belief in consent, even if it wasn’t reasonable. That changed with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which now requires honesty and reasonableness. This protects people from harm and ensures that the law takes the experiences and choices of everyone involved seriously. These rules are designed to keep people safe and ensure everyone’s rights are respected. The law encourages open communication, respect, and responsibility. It expects everyone to look for clear signs of agreement and to stop if there is any doubt or hesitation. What To Do If You’re Involved In A Sexual Offence Case Suppose you’re facing a situation involving consent or reasonable belief and you as the accused want to prove that either of these legal requirements existed, then you must seek legal advice and engage with specialist lawyers who can navigate the complexities of the key legal issues in sexual offence cases. These cases can be stressful and complex, and every detail matters: what was said, what was done, and what steps were taken to ensure everyone agreed. At Eventum Legal, we specialise in helping people understand their rights and responsibilities. We listen, explain your options in straightforward language, and support you throughout the process, always with respect and confidentiality. Whether you’re seeking justice, defending your reputation, or simply want to know your rights, we’re here to help. Frequently Asked Questions What is the difference between consent and reasonable belief? Consent is when a person freely agrees to a sexual act. Reasonable belief is whether the accused genuinely and reasonably believed that consent was given, based on all the facts. Can someone be convicted if they misunderstood consent? Yes, if their belief in consent wasn’t reasonable. The court looks at the whole situation, not just what the accused thought. How can I protect myself or prove consent? Open communication and ensuring everyone is comfortable and willing are the safest approaches. If you’re worried about misunderstandings, keep records of conversations. Where can I get help or advice? Contact Eventum Legal for confidential, expert support tailored to your needs.
Have you been accused of breaching your SHPO, maybe by accident or knowingly? Speak to our specialist team.
