R v Scott Morley

On an appeal against sentence, the central question is whether the total sentence is excessive, even where a different sentencing structure might have been preferable. Strangulation is intrinsically serious and, in a domestic relationship, may create both immediate fear for life and continuing control. A strangulation offence may properly be placed high within category A2 where aggravating features include violence against partners, breach of bail conditions, intoxication, breach of trust and an attack in the victim’s home. Where assault occasioning actual bodily harm arises from the same incident, concurrency may be appropriate, but the assault remains relevant to totality. The appeal was dismissed because a total sentence of three years six months, reduced for the guilty plea, was not excessive.

This was an appeal against sentence brought with leave of the single judge. The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Leeds to intentional strangulation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm arising from an assault on his partner. He received consecutive sentences of two years and 18 months, making a total of three years six months, together with a restraining order that was not challenged.

The appellant argued that the sentences should have been concurrent, that the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was excessive or failed to reflect the guilty-plea reduction, and that the judge had overstated the injuries and previous violence. The central issues were the proper treatment of offences arising from one incident and whether the overall sentence was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The principal task on an appeal against sentence was to determine whether the total sentence of three years six months, reduced from four years for the guilty plea, was excessive.
2. Totality and concurrency. The court accepted that there was force in the argument that offences arising from the same incident might properly attract concurrent sentences. It might have been preferable to treat the strangulation offence as the lead offence and impose a concurrent sentence for the assault. That possible error in structure did not make the overall sentence excessive. If the strangulation offence were treated as the lead offence, the assault would remain a further aggravating matter in assessing the total sentence.
3. Seriousness of the strangulation. Strangulation causes fear for life at the time. In a domestic relationship, it may also operate as a weapon of control in the future. The strangulation was properly placed in category A2, with a starting point of two-and-a-half years and a range up to three-and-a-half years. The court rejected the submission that the offending began at the lower end of the category. Pouring milk over the victim’s mouth and face while obstructing her airway was a particularly nasty feature, akin to waterboarding.
4. Aggravating and mitigating factors. Previous convictions for violence against partners, offending while on bail with conditions prohibiting contact, intoxication, the domestic relationship and the attack in the victim’s home were weighty aggravating features. Taken together, they justified placing the strangulation sentence well up within the guideline range, before account was taken of the assault. The family references supported custody and rehabilitation but did not materially reduce the seriousness of the conduct. The total sentence was therefore not excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The appeal against sentence was dismissed. [2025] EWCA Crim 1249.
2. Crown Court at Leeds The appellant pleaded guilty to intentional strangulation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to a total of three years six months’ imprisonment on 4 April 2025. The judgment appealed from is not otherwise cited.