R v Chay Thornton

A community order is not an available sentencing response where repeated domestic abuse, coercive control and intentional strangulation are so serious that the applicable guidelines require immediate custody. Youth, a difficult upbringing and prospects of rehabilitation may reduce sentence, but do not displace that conclusion. Persistent coercive and controlling behaviour may fall in the highest guideline category where it is prolonged and intended to maximise fear or distress. Persistent strangulation entailing a risk of death may attract the corresponding high culpability category, particularly where the victim lost consciousness or vomited. On an Attorney General’s reference, the court may consider later judicial oversight evidence relevant to rehabilitation. It retains discretion over guilty plea credit and may leave an assessment above the guideline rate undisturbed where the circumstances justify it.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Gloucester to one count of controlling or coercive behaviour, contrary to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, and two counts of intentional strangulation, contrary to section 75A of that Act. On 30 September 2025, His Honour Judge Lawrie KC imposed three-year community orders with unpaid work, rehabilitation and programme requirements, together with judicial oversight. The Solicitor General referred the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that they were unduly lenient. The central issues were whether the seriousness of the offending required immediate custody, the appropriate credit for guilty pleas, and whether progress under judicial oversight could be considered.

1. Disposition. The court gave leave for the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The community orders were unduly lenient and immediate custody was required.
2. Seriousness and categorisation. The offending was repeated, violent and dangerous domestic abuse. Count 1 was properly categorised as A1 controlling and coercive behaviour because the conduct was persistent, prolonged and intended to maximise fear or distress. Counts 2 and 3 were A2 strangulation offences involving persistent strangulation and a risk of death. The victim lost consciousness on one occasion and vomited after both incidents. A single offence carried a two-and-a-half-year starting point, and the three offences together required a sentence significantly above that level.
3. Mitigation and rehabilitation. The offender’s youth, limited criminal history, traumatic upbringing, learning difficulties and prospects of rehabilitation were material mitigating factors. They could not justify a community order given the gravity of the offending. The court could nevertheless take account of a subsequent judicial oversight hearing because it supported the conclusion that the rehabilitative package had prospects of success.
4. Guilty plea credit. The absence of a Better Case Management Form made assessment of the plea difficult. Although the guideline would have supported no more than 25 per cent credit, the court exercised its discretion not to interfere with the judge’s assessment of approximately 30 per cent, having regard to the circumstances in the magistrates’ court and the constructive early discussions.
5. Sentence. A four-year starting point was appropriate on each count. Applying approximately 30 per cent credit, the court substituted concurrent terms of 34 months’ imprisonment for each count. The remaining orders were unaffected. The offender was required to surrender to custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 16 December 2025, leave was granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The court quashed the community orders and substituted concurrent terms of 34 months’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 1845.
• Crown Court at Gloucester: On 30 September 2025, His Honour Judge Lawrie KC imposed three-year community orders for the three offences.