A man was sentenced to 31 months in prison for attacking his girlfriend. He argued his sentence should be shorter because of a delay in the case. The court said the judge was right not to shorten the sentence because the man was already in prison for a different crime and had lied about the attack.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against sentence for strangulation (s.75 Serious Crime Act 2015) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
- •Appellant pleaded guilty on 3 January 2024.
- •Sentenced to 31 months' imprisonment (2 years 7 months for strangulation, 12 months concurrent for assault).
- •Extensive criminal history, including previous convictions for violence and drug offences.
- •Offences committed while on licence for a previous drug conviction.
- •12-13 month delay between the conclusion of the investigation and the commencement of the prosecution.
- •Judge refused to discount sentence for time served on recall.
Legal Principles
Starting point for sentencing strangulation.
R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452
Sentencing principles concerning recall and delay in prosecution.
R v Castello [2010] EWCA Crim 371; R v Kerrigan [2014] EWCA Crim 2348; R v Phillips [2015] 2 Cr App R (S) 9; R v Christie [2019] EWCA Crim 1386
A judge retains discretion to do justice on the particular facts of a case, for example in the case of excessive delay, and may therefore reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence accordingly.
R v Kerrigan [2014] EWCA Crim 2348
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
While a 12-13 month delay in prosecution existed, the judge's decision not to discount the sentence due to the appellant's recall for a separate offence and denial of guilt was not considered justiciably wrong.