Key Facts
- •Jack Hartland pleaded guilty to coercive and controlling behaviour, non-fatal strangulation, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his partner, J.
- •The abuse was prolonged, involving verbal abuse, physical assaults, and controlling behaviour over approximately a year.
- •The most serious incidents occurred on 21 and 23 November 2022, involving strangulation and a severe assault resulting in significant injuries to J.
- •Hartland was 21 years old at sentencing, with no prior convictions.
- •The trial judge imposed a 2-year community order with a 15-day rehabilitation activity requirement, despite finding an appropriate custodial sentence would be 32 months.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for coercive or controlling behaviour under s.76 Serious Crime Act 2015
Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline for controlling or coercive behaviour
Sentencing for intentional strangulation under s.75A(1)(a) Serious Crime Act 2015
R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452
Sentencing for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Sentencing Council guideline 'assault definitive guideline'
Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse
Sentencing Council’s guideline
Community order requirements under s.208(10) and (11) Sentencing Act 2020
Sentencing Act 2020 and R v Gregson, R v Singh
Totality principle in sentencing
Not explicitly stated but implicitly used throughout the judgment
Suspended sentences under s.277 Sentencing Act 2020
Sentencing Act 2020
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The original sentence was unduly lenient and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences.
The community order was quashed.
Immediate custody was the appropriate sentence given the severity and nature of the offences.
A 3-year concurrent sentence was imposed on each count.
This sentence was considered the minimum appropriate to reflect the totality of the offences and ensure consistency with sentencing guidelines.
Hartland was ordered to surrender to custody by 2 pm.
To begin serving his sentence.
The sentence was deemed to start on the date of the appeal hearing.
To avoid time between the original sentencing and the appeal not counting toward time served.