R v Norbert Stari

For conduct before the express extra-territorial provisions took effect, an English court may try an offence under Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76, where a substantial measure of the activities constituting the offence occurred in England, although some elements and effects occurred abroad. The territorial inquiry must also accord with the statutory purpose and the mischief addressed.

Section 76 concerns abusive conduct within a relationship over time. Where a relationship is habitually resident and closely connected with England, overseas incidents may form part of the course of conduct. International comity creates no separate bar once the substantial-measure test is met.

The applicant was convicted at Northampton Crown Court of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, contrary to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. He was acquitted of three rape counts.

The prosecution alleged a course of abuse in the United Kingdom between February 2017 and November 2018. It also relied on his withholding the children’s passports and pressuring the complainant while she and the children remained in Serbia. The applicant contended that the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction over that overseas element and that it should not have affected sentence.

The central issue was whether the offence could be tried in England where part of the alleged controlling or coercive behaviour and its effect occurred abroad.

1. The court granted an extension of time and permission to appeal against conviction, but dismissed that appeal. It held that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try the section 76 offence. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
2. English criminal jurisdiction is territorial. In the absence of an express or necessarily implied statutory territorial rule, however, the Crown Court may try an offence if a substantial measure of the activities constituting it took place in England, even though some elements occurred abroad. The court must also consider whether that result accords with the purpose of the statutory provision and the mischief at which it is aimed.
3. The court applied that approach to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The provision addresses repeated or continuous abusive conduct in a relationship over time. It is consistent with that purpose for conduct within a relationship habitually resident and closely connected with England to be criminal, although some elements occurred abroad. The later extra-territorial provisions in section 74 and Schedule 3 to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 did not apply to this pre-commencement conduct and did not displace the common-law territorial test.
4. On the facts, the abusive relationship lasted 22 months and a substantial measure of the conduct constituting the offence occurred in the United Kingdom. This included messages, calls, threats, and refusal to return passports or comply with Family Court orders. The conduct also had effects in the United Kingdom. There was no separate requirement that prosecution should satisfy international comity.
5. As the Serbia-related conduct was properly part of the offence, the sentencing judge was entitled to take it into account and to determine the factual basis for sentence. The 30-month sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In R v Norbert Stari [2023] EWCA Crim 1409, the court extended time and granted permission for the conviction appeal, then dismissed it. It refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Northampton — On 19 May 2022, the applicant was convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour contrary to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. On 14 July 2022, he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a restraining order.