R v Daryl Hood

Intentional strangulation is always serious because it can quickly cause death. The fact that a victim could breathe throughout or resist the attack does not remove that seriousness, although it remains relevant to sentence. The court must assess the particular facts and all aggravating and mitigating factors. A substantial uplift may be required for serious aggravating features, but the resulting sentence must remain proportionate. Guidance identifying an appropriate starting point must be applied with regard to the facts of the individual case, as illustrated by R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452. Consecutive sentences for distinct serious offences are permissible, subject to the totality principle.

The appellant pleaded guilty to intentional strangulation, controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, possession of amphetamine, common assault and obstructing a constable. He was committed for sentence and, on 20 March 2024, the Crown Court at Norwich imposed a total sentence of 49 months’ imprisonment.

He appealed with permission, challenging the sentences for intentional strangulation and controlling or coercive behaviour, and the use of consecutive sentences. The central issues were whether the sentencing approach was manifestly excessive, whether the guidance in R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452 had been properly applied, and whether the overall sentence satisfied totality.

The appeal against sentence was allowed to a limited extent.

1. The controlling or coercive behaviour was properly classified as culpability A and harm category 1. The persistent demands, threats and aggression were intended to secure the handing over of money and caused the victim very serious alarm or distress. The aggravating factors, including previous domestic violence and the victim’s vulnerability due to age, significantly outweighed the mitigation. The sentence imposed for that offence was not manifestly excessive.
2. The court applied the guidance in R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452. That decision identified an 18-month starting point for intentional strangulation. In that case, aggravating factors produced a sentence of 30 months before mitigation. The present sentence of 42 months after mitigation was excessive when compared with the guidance and the circumstances of the offending.
3. Intentional strangulation remains a serious offence even where the victim can breathe throughout and is able to push the offender away, since strangulation can quickly result in death. The court nevertheless had to weigh the particular aggravating and mitigating factors. An appropriate sentence before guilty plea credit was 30 months, reduced to 20 months after full credit.
4. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for the two serious and separate offences. The concurrent sentences for the remaining offences ensured that the total sentence was just and proportionate.

The sentence of 28 months for intentional strangulation was quashed and replaced with 20 months. All other sentences remained unchanged, producing a total sentence of 41 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 3 September 2024, allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the 28-month sentence for intentional strangulation and substituting 20 months, with all other sentences unchanged.
• Crown Court at Norwich: On 20 March 2024, imposed a total sentence of 49 months’ imprisonment.
• Norwich Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence.