R v Geoffrey Butler

For sentencing intentional strangulation, the assault occasioning actual bodily harm guideline is not directly applicable because harm is inherent in the act. The absence of further specific harm therefore does not justify reducing sentence. Where strangulation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm are both charged and proved, the court should ordinarily sentence for strangulation as the lead offence and increase that sentence for the additional criminality in the wider assault. The court must avoid counting the strangulation twice. The assault offence may instead be treated as the lead where the facts make that more appropriate. The overriding appellate question is whether the total sentence is manifestly excessive.

The appellant was committed to the Crown Court for sentence after pleading guilty to breaching a non-molestation order and being convicted after summary trial of intentional strangulation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Crown Court at Northampton imposed a total sentence of three years and ten weeks' imprisonment: ten weeks consecutively for the breach, three years concurrently for the assault and 12 months concurrently for strangulation.

The recorder mistakenly referred to the category A1 sentencing range for the assault, although the offence was initially treated as category A2. The appeal challenged the overall sentence as excessive, particularly because the offences arose from one relatively short incident. The court considered the effect of R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452 and the proper approach where strangulation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm are charged together.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The total sentence of three years and ten weeks' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

1. The appellate question was whether the overall sentence, viewed in accordance with totality, was manifestly excessive. The court was not ultimately concerned with the precise route by which the recorder had reached the overall figure, although that route required correction.
2. R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452 established an 18-month starting point for intentional strangulation. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm guideline was not directly applicable to that offence because real harm is inherent in intentional strangulation. The categories of harm in that guideline could not therefore be directly imported, and arguments based on the absence of specific harm could not reduce the sentence. The court also referred to R v Hartland in stating the practical effect of that principle.
3. Where intentional strangulation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm are both charged and proved, the appropriate approach will ordinarily be to sentence for strangulation and then increase the sentence to reflect the additional criminality in the wider assault. The court must avoid double counting the strangulation, which is also a culpability factor under the assault guideline. In some cases the assault offence may properly be treated as the lead offence, provided double counting is avoided.
4. Applying that approach, the numerous aggravating features justified increasing the 18-month starting point to at least 30 months. The assault was properly categorised as A2 rather than A1. The persistent attack, including the headlock, pushing the victim down the stairs and further squeezing, justified a six-month increase, producing an appropriate three-year sentence. The unchallenged ten-week consecutive sentence for breach of the non-molestation order and the totality adjustment were also appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive: [2023] EWCA Crim 800.
• Crown Court at Northampton: The appellant was sentenced to three years and ten weeks' imprisonment for breach of a non-molestation order, intentional strangulation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.