R v Chay Thornton

Persistent coercive and controlling behaviour combined with repeated intentional strangulation, including loss of consciousness and a risk of death, may require immediate custody despite youth, limited convictions, difficult personal circumstances and rehabilitation prospects. The seriousness of multiple offences must be assessed cumulatively. On an Attorney General’s reference, the appellate court may exercise discretion to retain a guilty-plea discount above the guideline level where the circumstances justify it, even if the plea record is incomplete.

An Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 challenged a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Gloucester on 30 September 2025. The offender had pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour under section 76 and two offences of intentional strangulation under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The sentencing judge imposed three-year community orders with requirements instead of immediate custody. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient in light of the repeated violence, the domestic context, the risk of death and the offender’s mitigation.

1. Leave and seriousness. The court granted leave for the reference. Although it understood the sentencing judge’s wish to rehabilitate a young offender with a limited record, the offending was far too serious for community orders. It involved persistent coercive and controlling behaviour, repeated violence and two serious strangulations, one causing loss of consciousness and both causing vomiting. The consequences for the victim could be long-lasting and disastrous.
2. Guideline categorisation. The controlling and coercive behaviour was properly categorised as A1 because it was persistent over a prolonged period and intended to maximise fear or distress. The strangulation offences were A2 offences because they involved persistent strangulation entailing a risk of death. Each count had a custody starting point of two and a half years. Taken together, the counts required a sentence significantly above the starting point for any single offence.
3. Mitigation and guilty plea. The offender’s age, limited criminal history, difficult upbringing, learning difficulties and rehabilitation prospects justified a sentence below that which might otherwise have been imposed, but did not justify avoiding custody. The court accepted that a 30 per cent discount was more generous than the guideline would strictly require, but declined to interfere with the sentencing judge’s discretionary assessment in the circumstances. The absence of a Better Case Management Form was regrettable and materially hindered assessment of the plea history.
4. Judicial oversight and orders. The court could reasonably take account of the subsequent judicial oversight hearing as supporting the prospects of the rehabilitative package, while reviewing the sentence principally on the material available at sentence. It quashed the community orders and substituted concurrent terms of 34 months’ imprisonment on each count. The other orders remained in force, and the offender was required to surrender to custody.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, quashed the three community orders and substituted concurrent terms of 34 months’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 1734.
2. Crown Court at Gloucester — On 30 September 2025, His Honour Judge Lawrie KC imposed a three-year community order on each of the three counts, with unpaid work, rehabilitation and programme requirements.