Intentional Strangulation: The Proper Approach to Sentencing in the Absence of a Sentencing Guideline

Published date01 August 2023
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231190072
AuthorMark Thomas,James J Ball
Date01 August 2023
Intentional Strangulation:
The Proper Approach to
Sentencing in the Absence
of a Sentencing Guideline
R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452
Keywords
Intentional strangulation, suffocation, sentencing guidelines, culpability, harm
The offence of intentional strangulation (often referred to as non-fatal strangulation) was introduced by
section 70 of the Domestic Abuse Act (DAA) 2021. Section 70 inserted section 75A to the Serious Crime
Act (SCA) 2015 and took effect from 7 June 2022. Since its introduction, there has been little case author-
ity to interpret the statutory elements of the offence; leaving practitioners to apply common sense and
good logic. Further to this, in lieu of a Def‌initive Sentencing Council Guideline, there has been little
case law interpreting the proper approach to sentence for this offence. Cook seeks to provide some
clarity and guidance to practitioners on the proper approach to sentencing.
The Appellant, Alf‌ie Cook (C), was in a relationship with the victim in this case, Deborah Rodriguez
(V). The relationship, having begun in 2020 when C was 18, broke down in June 2022 following an
assault committed by C against V, where he strangled her and spat at her (V being pregnant with Cs
child at this time). The assault occurred before the commencement of section 75A, resulting in the
defendant being charged with common assault.
Following the charge, the defendant was remanded on conditional bail with the sole condition to
not visit Vs home address. In breach of that condition, C attended Vs house on 6 November 2022.
By this time, V had given birth to Cs child; the child being present at the house. Whilst there, an
altercation broke out between the pair resulting in C grabbing V by the throat. At f‌irst, C squeezed
her neck with one hand, digging his f‌ingers into her skin. C subsequently pushed V onto the sofa,
causing her to hit her head on the wall, before grabbing her by the throat with both hands. V was
able to escape from Csgraspandf‌led to the bathroom. Some of this assault was f‌ilmed by V on
her phone, and images were taken by V of the reddening of her neck. The defendant was subse-
quently arrested for intentional strangulation and answered no comment to all questions asked in
interview.
In respect of the common assault charge, C was convicted by the magistratescourt following a trial. In
respect of the strangulation offence, C gave no indication of plea but elected trial on indictment. At his
Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH), C pleaded guilty to the offence and, at an adjourned senten-
cing hearing, was sentenced to 15 monthsimprisonment (though it was noted by the Court of Appeal that
this should have been expressed as detention in a young offender institutiongiven Cs age at the date of
conviction).
In her sentencing remarks, the learned judge considered the breach of bail, the presence of the child,
and the previous case of strangulation to be aggravating factors. In mitigation, the judge accepted the
Case Note
The Journal of Criminal Law
2023, Vol. 87(4) 281289
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183231190072
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT