English Court's Jurisdiction Over Controlling or Coercive Behaviour Abroad: R v Norbert Stari Case Analysis

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1409
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of R v Norbert Stari [2023] EWCA Crim 1409 involves an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The key legal issue centres on the English court’s jurisdiction to try offences under the Serious Crime Act 2015, specifically with regard to controlling or coercive behaviour where acts have been perpetrated or have effects outside of the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Key Facts

Norbert Stari was convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The conviction was based on behaviours that took place within both the UK and Serbia. The prosecution’s case alleged that Stari’s actions had serious effects on the victim, identified as “ET,” in both jurisdictions. Stari appealed, arguing that the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to consider actions occurring in Serbia.

The principal legal issues assessed included:

  1. The Territorial Jurisdiction of English Courts: The appeal considered whether the Crown Court could try offences part-committed outside jurisdiction. The court considered the “substantial measure” principle from R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 4) [2004] EWCA Crim 631; [2004] QB 1418 and its applicability in the case of offences committed partially abroad.

  2. Jurisdictional Limits Based on Effects: Stari’s defence questioned whether English courts could try behaviours based on their effects on a victim while they were abroad, drawing on the civil case Lawal v Adeyinka [2021] EWHC 2486 (QB) to argue that the court’s scope should be restricted to incidents within the jurisdiction.

  3. Statutory Interpretation and Application: The judgement reflected on the interpretation of section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, alongside the newly introduced section 74 and schedule 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which clarifies that controlling or coercive behaviour applies to behaviour abroad under certain conditions.

Outcomes

The court found that:

  1. Court Jurisdiction: Using the “substantial measure” test, the Crown Court was held to have jurisdiction over the matter as a significant aspect of the crime occurred in the UK.

  2. Application of Domestic Abuse Act 2021: It was established that the new provisions did not apply retrospectively and hence were not considered. Instead, the common law principle was applied to ascertain the territorial application of section 76.

  3. Affect on Victim Abroad: The court disagreed with the Defence’s analogy to Lawal, emphasising the serious effect part of the offence under section 76 could occur abroad, due to the inherent nature of the statute concerning relationships and connection with the UK jurisdiction.

  4. Appeal against Conviction: The appeal against conviction was dismissed as the court held that a substantial measure of the offence took place in England.

  5. Appeal against Sentence: The appeal against the sentence of 30 months was refused, as the behaviour that compelled the sentencing was deemed correctly tried and within the court’s jurisdiction to consider.

Conclusion

In summary, the case R v Stari illustrates the English court’s application of the “substantial measure” principle to establish jurisdiction in cases where offences have transnational elements. It emphasizes that conduct forming part of a course of controlling or coercive behaviour, which has a significant effect on a victim connected with the UK, can be rightfully considered within the scope of English criminal law. The judgement underlines the courts’ willingness to extend jurisdiction to uphold the statutes’ aims — protecting individuals within personal relationships from abuse — irrespective of the physical locality of some abusive acts.