Strangulation and suffocation

• Introduction
• Strangulation or suffocation
• Case building
• Offences available to prosecutors and selecting the appropriate charge
• Acceptability of pleas
• Extra-territorial jurisdiction

Introduction

Section 70 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (DA Act 2021) introduced the offence of strangulation or suffocation. Schedule 2, paragraph 4 DA Act 2021 introduced the offence of racially or religiously aggravated strangulation or suffocation. The offence came into force on 7 June 2022 and is not retrospective.

The purpose of this guidance is to assist prosecutors in reviewing and preparing cases involving this offence and set out the points to prove. It also provides practical guidance to assist prosecutors in deciding when to charge this offence.

When considering this offence prosecutors must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors and consider the guidance in the Offences Against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard prosecution guidance.

Prosecutors should make clear in their review of cases the rationale for charging an offence of strangulation, suffocation or the racial or religious form of this offence, the case analysis and strategy.

This offence is applicable to all cases, not just those involving domestic abuse (DA). It should therefore be considered in every case where there is evidence of strangulation or suffocation. For cases involving DA the Domestic Abuse prosecution guidance should also be applied. For cases involving the racial or religious element of the offence the racist and religious hate crime prosecution guidance should be applied.

The following codes have been created on the CPS case management system to be used when charging these offences: SC15005 (strangulation), SC15006 (suffocation) and CD98080 (racially or religiously aggravated strangulation or suffocation).

Strangulation or suffocation

Definition

Section 70(1) DA Act 2021 inserted section 75A into Part 5 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (SCA 2015) creating an offence of strangulation (section75A(1)(a)) or suffocation (section 75A(1)(b)).

The legislation states the following:

Section 75A(1) a person (“A”) commits an offence if:

• A intentionally strangles another person (“B”), or
• A does any other act to B that –
  • affects B’s ability to breathe, and
  • constitutes a battery of B.

Strangulation

Section 75A(1)(a) SCA 2015 is the offence of strangulation.

The legislation does not provide a definition of ‘strangulation’ or ‘strangles’. A definition which may be applied is: the application of force or pressure by the defendant to the victim’s neck, whether using their hands or other means. The Crown Court Compendium states the dictionary definition is, ‘the action or process of stopping respiration by compression of the air passage especially by a sudden and violent compression of the windpipe.’ There is no special legal definition. The word should be given its ordinary meaning which is obstruction or compression around the neck and applying force. This offence applies where strangulation does not result in death of the victim.

Strangulation does not require a particular level of pressure or force within its ordinary meaning, it does not require any injury and it does not require proof of a consequence such as impeded breathing or circulation.

Some dictionary definitions of the word “strangle” link the word to an intention to kill or the causing of death. The statute however does not require an intention to kill nor any link to death. Although not a criminal case, in Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17, the UK Supreme Court considered the ordinary meaning of “strangle” in the context of a Facebook post, in which the applicant in the proceedings claimed the words used, namely, ‘tried to strangle me’ were defamatory as they indicated an intention to kill. The Court considered that the ordinary reader would define ‘strangle’ as force to the neck, which did not involve killing. The Court said, “the danger of the use of dictionary definitions to provide a guide to the meaning of an alleged defamatory statement. That meaning is to be determined according to how it would be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader. It is not fixed by technical, linguistically precise dictionary definitions, divorced from the context in which the statement was made.” Similar caution should be applied to an attempt to introduce dictionary definitions into the ordinary meaning of strangle in criminal proceedings.

The common methods of strangulation are:

• manual – one or two hands held around the neck of a person
• chokehold or head lock – external pressure applied by an arm around the neck
• ligature – for example a scarf or belt tightened around the neck
• hanging
• pressure on the neck from a foot or knee

The above list is not exhaustive.

For this offence there is no requirement for prosecutors to prove that “A” had an intention to cause injury to “B”. The relevant mental element is that “A” intended to commit the act of strangulation. It requires an intentional act: the offence cannot be committed recklessly. It is difficult to envision how strangulation could be committed recklessly but if this arises consideration should be given whether a charge of suffocation is appropriate.

Suffocation

Section 75A(1)(b) SCA 2015 is the offence of suffocation. The legislation does not provide a definition of ‘suffocation’. The word should be given its ordinary meaning which is to deprive a person of air which affects their normal breathing. This definition is wider than that of strangulation which requires pressure to the neck.

Methods of suffocation could include:

• putting a hand over the mouth and nose
• compressing the chest
• any other force or suppression applied to a person to cause a restriction of breath

The above list is not exhaustive: the legislation is widely drafted to include someone who ‘does any other act’. Therefore, any action that causes a person to be deprived of air which affects their normal breathing could be considered to fall within the definition.

To complete the offence of suffocation, prosecutors must also prove that an offence of battery has occurred. This legislation also does not provide a definition of battery. Its legal meaning is derived from caselaw: the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person. Therefore, the mental element of this offence is wider than strangulation as it can be committed intentionally or recklessly.

Defences

Section 75A(2) SCA 2015 provides a statutory defence for A to show that B consented to the strangulation or other act. However, this is a limited by section 75A(3) SCA 2015 which states the defence does not apply if:

• B suffers serious harm as a result of the strangulation or other act, and
• A either –
  • intended to cause B serious harm, or
  • was reckless as to whether B would suffer serious harm.

The legislation goes on to provide a definition of ‘serious harm’ in section 75A(6) SCA 2015 as:

• grievous bodily harm (GBH) within the meaning of section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861,
• wounding within the meaning of section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or
• actual bodily harm (ABH), within the meaning of section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

This gives legislative effect to the decision in R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 which decided that consent by the victim to the infliction of any injury amounting to ABH, unlawful wounding or GBH did not provide a suspect or defendant with a defence save in special circumstances.

Prosecutors should refer to the prosecution guidance on Offences Against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard for the definitions of GBH, wounding and ABH.

Allocation

Prosecutors should consider whether it appropriate for a case to be tried in the Magistrates’ court and if convicted then committed for sentence. The sentencing factors listed below should be considered and the complexity of the case.

Sentencing

This offence is triable either way. A person found guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both and on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine, or both.

There are currently no Sentencing Council Guidelines specific to this offence.

However, in Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452, the Court of Appeal set out the approach a sentencer should take. It should be noted that this case relates to strangulation rather than suffocation.

This authority is clear that, in light of the conduct inherent in the offence, a custodial sentence will be appropriate, save for in exceptional circumstances. This should ordinarily be one of immediate custody, with a starting point of 18 months imprisonment. The following non-exhaustive list of factors may increase the starting point:

• history of previous violence (the significance of the history will be greater when the previous violence has involved strangulation)
• presence of a child or children
• attack carried out in the victim's home
• sustained or repeated strangulation
• use of a ligature or equivalent
• abuse of power
• offender under influence of drink or drugs
• offence on licence
• vulnerable victim
• steps taken to prevent the victim reporting an incident
• steps taken to prevent the victim obtaining assistance

Statutory aggravating factors will apply:

• previous convictions, having regard to (a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates, and its relevance to the current offence; and (b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
• offence committed whilst on bail.
• offence motivated by or demonstrating hostility based on any of the following characteristics, or presumed characteristics of the victim, disability, sexual orientation, or trans-gender identity

A non-exhaustive list of mitigating factors includes:

• good character
• age and immaturity
• remorse
• mental disorder
• genuine recognition of the need for change and evidence of the offender having sought appropriate help and assistance
• very short-lived strangulation from which the offender voluntarily desisted

Racially or Religiously Aggravated Strangulation or suffocation

Schedule 2, paragraph 4 DA Act 2021 created section 29(1)(ba) Crime and Disorder Act 1998(CDA 1998), an offence of racially or religiously aggravated strangulation or suffocation. See above for the definitions and potential defences for strangulation or suffocation.

To prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the prosecution must prove the "basic" offence followed by racial or religious aggravation, as defined in section 28 CDA 1998. An offence will be racially aggravated if:

• at the time of committing the offence or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or
• the offence was motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.

See further the prosecution guidance on Racist and Religious Hate Crime.

Racially or Religiously Aggravated - Sentencing

The offence of racially or religiously aggravated strangulation or suffocation is triable either way. A person found guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or both and on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years’ imprisonment, or to a fine, or both.

There are currently no Sentencing Council Guidelines specific to this offence. However, prosecutors should consider the case of Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452 noted above.

Case building

Prosecutors should ensure that efforts are aimed at building a robust prosecution case. In cases of this nature often the act will not have been witnessed by others, with prosecution needing to rely primarily on the account of the victim. Consideration should be given to the detail provided by the victim, which may provide support, including (but not limited to) information about the following:

• their physical reaction such as: any difficulty breathing, hyperventilating or chest pain
• any difficulty or pain such as: pain when swallowing, any nausea or vomiting and throat/neck pain or stiffness
• whether the victim’s voice was affected such as: hoarseness, coughing and difficulties with speech
• whether the victim’s hearing was affected such as: deafness or ringing in the ears
• whether the victim suffered any damage to their larynx – such as a fracture – or any injury to the mouth and tongue due to direct pressure on the teeth
• whether the victim suffered any amnesia or shown symptoms of PTSD
• whether the victim had any dizziness, headaches or blurred vision
• whether the victim suffered incontinence during the incident or after they lost consciousness
• any information as to how long the incident lasted
• whether this is the first time the victim has been subjected to strangulation or suffocation
• whether the suspect or defendant said anything during the incident
• whether the victim could hear or see throughout the incident
• what happened immediately before and after the incident
• whether the victim sought medical attention

Some of this information may be contained with a victim personal statement (VPS). It is therefore particularly important to obtain a VPS in all cases of this nature. See the Joint Agency Guide to the Victim Personal Statement for further information.

It is important to ensure that they have been provided with any additional evidence and information from the police to assist in building a robust case. Consideration should be given to other potential sources of evidence, such as:

• any disclosures to close relatives, friends and third parties
• any account from the first responder on the scene detailing, their observations of the victim and suspect, (if they remain in attendance), including any visible signs of injury, signs of confusion or disorientation, voice quality and incontinence. Along with details of the scene itself, such as: signs of a struggle and paraphernalia that could be associated with strangulation or suffocation e.g. ropes, belts and plastic bags/sheeting.
• previous convictions and crime reports
• the suspect’s account – where appropriate ensure this has been challenged in a police interview, for example, where consent to strangle has been raised
• there is no requirement for there to be any injuries for this offence but any medical evidence should be obtained when it is a reasonable line of enquiry Where victims have been taken to A&E, an oxygen saturation test may have been completed. Where this test shows results below normal rates this could be relied upon as compelling evidence to support a prosecution and should be requested. Within any medical notes received prosecutors should also look out for evidence of petechiae. These are pin prick dots where small blood vessels have burst, which can sometimes be seen in the eyes, ears or scalp.
• the 999 call for assistance
• Body Worn footage
• photos of injuries or scene

This is not an exhaustive list.

Strangulation or suffocation often leaves minimal or no visible injury on the victim. The absence of evidence of injury is therefore not conclusive on the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute or not. Strangulation or suffocation is documented by medical experts to pose risks to the victim’s health, both immediately and in the longer term, due to the restriction of oxygen to the brain. It can also cause psychological damage to the victim.

Offences available to prosecutors and selecting the appropriate charge

Other than the standalone offence(s) under section 75A SCA 2015, there are already several offences in existence that should be considered when the offending is described as strangulation or suffocation. These are detailed below:

• Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 - Common Assault or Battery
  
  Any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence. Includes battery, which is committed by the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person.
  
  This offence is summary only. A person found guilty is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months and/or a fine.
   
• Section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH)
  
  ABH includes any hurt which interferes with the health or comfort of the victim: such hurt need not be permanent but must be more than transient and trifling [R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498]. “Harm” is not limited to “injury” but extended to hurt or damage, and “bodily”, whether used as an adjective or an adverb, is “concerned with the body” and not limited to skin, flesh and bones [DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 Admin].
  
  Psychological injury not amounting to recognisable psychiatric illness does not fall within the ambit of bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 [R v D [2006] EWCA Crim 1139].
  
  This offence is triable either way. A person found guilty on summary conviction is liable to a term not exceeding 12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine. Upon an indictable conviction a person is liable to a term not exceeding 5 years' imprisonment.
   
• Section 21 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle any other person in order to commit any indictable offence
  
  This offence requires a person to attempt to choke, suffocate or strangle any other person in order to render that person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance with intent to commit an indictable offence.
  
  This is an indictable offence. If a person is found guilty on indictment, they are liable to a term not exceeding life imprisonment.
  
  This offence is rarely charged as either there is often an absence of evidence as to the suspect’s specific intent, or there is a substantive offence to be charged which reflects the facts of the case in their entirety. It may however be charged in some circumstances, applying section 6 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. First, where there is evidence that the suspect intended another crime (such as a serious sexual offence). Second, where it precedes such a crime and the presentation of the case and the provision of adequate sentencing powers to the court merits an additional charge.
   
• Section 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm (GBH)
  
  This offence requires a person to unlawfully and maliciously cause GBH or wound a person with the intention to cause GBH.
  
  This is an indictable only offence. If a person is found guilty on indictment they are liable to a term not exceeding life imprisonment.
   
• Section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Inflicting bodily injury, with or without a weapon
  
  This offence requires a person to unlawfully and maliciously inflict a wound or GBH on a person.
  
  This is an either way offence. If a person is found guilty on a summary conviction they are liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months' and/or a fine. On an indictable conviction they are liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years' imprisonment.

It is for the prosecutor to consider all the circumstances and facts of the case to arrive at a decision on the appropriate charge. The prosecutor must apply the principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, in particular paragraph 6 which provides guidance on the selection of charges.

Further principles which may inform that decision can be found in the Offences Against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard prosecution guidance.

Strangulation or suffocation often leaves minimal or no injury but due to the nature of the offending this does not reduce the level of harm caused. This also highlights the importance of exploring any non-visible injuries, as injuries may only become apparent sometime after the incident.

If there is sufficient evidence to prove strangulation or suffocation this should be charged in preference to a common assault/battery even where there are no or minimal injuries. Common assault/battery should never be charged solely as a means of keeping an offence in the magistrates’ court.

Prosecutors will often have to consider if the offending should be charged as ABH, strangulation or suffocation. A definition of ABH can be found in the Offences Against the Person, incorporating Charging Standard prosecution guidance.

ABH, strangulation and suffocation all carry the same sentencing powers available to the Court. There are currently no sentencing council guidelines in place for strangulation or suffocation offences, but there are for ABH.

Where there is clear and credible evidence that strangulation, suffocation or ABH has occurred, prosecutors should charge an offence of strangulation or suffocation rather than an ABH. This will mark the seriousness of this offending clearly on the defendant’s record in the event of a conviction. Parliament has legislated for a specific offence to reflect the seriousness of this form of assault.

Where the evidence shows a distinct single offence of strangulation or suffocation, with no other offending but the injuries amount to a GBH, prosecutors should ensure the Court has sufficient powers to sentence. Where a suspect can be properly charged under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, that offence should be preferred rather than a non-fatal strangulation or a non-fatal suffocation as it carries a higher sentence. Refer to the Offences Against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard prosecution guidance for a definition of GBH and the cases of R v Golding [2014] EWCA Crim 889 and R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846.

This would also be the case where there is evidence of a strangulation or suffocation, but there was sufficient evidence of an attempted murder. The more serious offence should be charged to allow the Court sufficient sentencing powers. Refer to the Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter prosecution guidance and Offences Against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard prosecution guidance for further information.

Where there is sufficient evidence to prove strangulation or suffocation along with evidence of a racist or religious element to the offending prosecutors should prosecute the offending under the CDA 1998 to allow the Court sufficient sentencing powers and ensure the offence is recorded on the defendant’s antecedents.

There may be scenarios where it is appropriate to consider whether alternative verdicts may be open to the jury, and they could consider adding strangulation or suffocation as an alternative count. For example, where a charge of attempted murder has been laid, a prosecutor may add the substantive offence of strangulation or suffocation in the alternative, in case the jury are not satisfied of the intent to kill but can be satisfied of the strangulation or suffocation.

Where there is sufficient evidence of more than one type of assault, prosecutors must ensure that their case strategy is clear, and the case is opened to the Court in a way that explicitly sets out the elements of the offences charged. For example, where both a strangulation and ABH have been charged, the case should be opened to set out to the court the evidence relied upon for each offence e.g. the defendant punched the victim causing a broken nose, reflected in the ABH charge, and then strangled the victim, reflected in the separate charge of strangulation. The Court will then be able to determine the appropriate sentence based on the entire assault. This will also ensure that each offence is recorded on the defendant’s antecedents and may demonstrate to the Court escalating behaviour enabling the Court to consider the seriousness of strangulation or suffocation. It also helps to ensure that future risk assessments with regard to the defendant are fully informed.

In R v Carrigan [2021] EWCA Crim 1553 the court was dealing with ““no ordinary allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. It included a repeated, protracted and terrifying attack on a vulnerable and defenceless woman in her own home at a time when her attacker was in possession of a knife. … Most importantly, it included a period of strangulation when her breathing was interrupted. That particular characteristic must inevitably take the offence into the top category of seriousness for the purposes of applying the relevant guideline.” This case indicates how serious the court considers an offence involving strangulation even when charged alongside wounding with intent. Adding a separate charge, where appropriate, will allow the Court to reflect the seriousness of the offending in its entirety in the sentencing exercise.

R v Jex [2021] EWCA Crim 1708 was a domestic abuse case, where the relationship had ended over 2 years prior to the incident. The defendant carried out a prolonged assault on the victim accompanied by threats. During the course of the assault the defendant strangled the victim four times using such force that the victim struggled to breathe. In the circumstances of this case now, a prosecutor would be able to consider charging both an assault offence and a strangulation or suffocation offence to reflect the seriousness of the offending and allow the Court sufficient sentencing power.

In addition to the other offences against the person, consideration should be given to the offending as a whole and whether other offence(s) should be charged. These may include rape and sexual offences or controlling and coercive behaviour for example. This is not an exhaustive list and any other relevant offence should be considered in order to reflect the totality of the offending behaviour.

Reference should be made to the Rape and Sexual Offences prosecution guidance, the Controlling and Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship prosecution guidance and the Domestic Abuse prosecution guidance, alongside this guidance where relevant.

Acceptability of pleas

Prosecutors should refer to the Attorney General's Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas and the Prosecutor's Role in the Sentencing Exercise and paragraph 9 of the Code when determining acceptability of pleas.

In some cases, the defendant may offer a guilty plea to a different charge or plead guilty to some of the charges made against them, but not all.

When considering whether to accept a plea in these instances, this should be discussed with the victim. The victim’s views (either directly, or through any support organisation working on their behalf) should be taken into account before any decision is made.

The following factors should be considered when deciding whether to accept a plea:

• whether the defendant offers a plea that is in accordance with the evidence available to the prosecution
• whether the defendant has any previous incidents recorded against them
• whether it would be advantageous to the victim and any children or dependents not to have to give evidence
• the victim's views on the pleas offered (some victims would prefer to give evidence rather than accept a plea to only one part of the offending or a lesser offence)
• whether the plea fetters the discretion of the court in relation to sentencing
• whether the difference between the prosecution and defence version of events is such that it would significantly affect the sentence that would be imposed (if it does, there should be a Newton Hearing to determine the facts)
• the fact that defendants will often seek to minimise the offence or mitigate their offence; and,
• whether the acceptance of plea could impact upon the ancillary orders available to the court at sentence

Accepting a plea to an ABH in place of strangulation or suffocation is unlikely to alter the sentencing powers available to the Court but it would impact upon what is reflected on the offender’s record and could impact upon future risk assessments prepared by other organisations. For these reasons prosecutors should think carefully about the suitability of accepting an ABH plea in place of strangulation or suffocation and, where it is considered appropriate to accept a plea to a different offence, the rationale should be clearly recorded.

A plea to a battery or common assault in place of a strangulation or suffocation is unlikely to be an acceptable plea. It would reduce the severity of the offending and is unlikely to reflect the culpability of the offender and the harm caused to the victim.

It is CPS policy not to accept pleas to lesser offences, or a lesser basis of plea which omit or minimise admissible evidence of racial or religious aggravation for the sake of expediency.

Where there has been an agreed basis between prosecutors and the defence to a plea, this should be put into writing and signed by both parties.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction

Section 70(1) DA Act 2021 inserted section 75B into the Serious Crime Act 2015. This provides extraterritorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts in England and Wales. Where appropriate, UK nationals and those habitually resident in England and Wales that allegedly commit the section 75A offence of strangulation or suffocation outside the UK may be tried in England and Wales. A UK national is defined at section 75B(2) SCA 2015. For more information prosecutors should refer to the Jurisdiction prosecution guidance.