Non-Fatal Strangulation Defence Solicitors
Specialist Representation in Strangulation and Suffocation Allegations
Non-fatal strangulation became a specific criminal offence in England and Wales on 7 June 2022. Police and prosecutors treat it seriously, and the Crown Court is where most cases end up. The sentencing exposure is real, and in cases arising from a domestic context, an immediate custodial sentence is what courts are inclined towards.
At the same time, these cases are almost always built on a complainant’s account rather than physical evidence. The offence does not require proof of injury, which was a deliberate legislative choice, but it also means the prosecution’s case depends heavily on testimony and its internal consistency. That is where defence work in these cases is most productive.
The offence
Section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015, inserted by section 70 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, creates the offences of strangulation and suffocation. A person commits the offence by intentionally strangling another person, or by doing any other act that affects the other person’s ability to breathe and amounts to a battery. A separate provision, section 75B, extends the court’s jurisdiction to cover British nationals and residents who commit the offence outside England and Wales.
The legislation does not require proof of injury. No visible marks, no lasting physical harm. Parliament made that choice deliberately, because strangulation frequently leaves no external trace while still carrying a serious risk of harm. The practical consequence is that the prosecution’s case ordinarily rests on the complainant’s account rather than forensic findings.
What the prosecution must prove
Three elements must be established to the criminal standard. First, the act: that the defendant strangled the complainant or did another act affecting their ability to breathe. Second, intention: that the act was deliberate rather than accidental. Third, battery: that the contact was unlawful, meaning there was no genuine consent and no lawful excuse.
Each of those elements is genuinely contestable. The absence of injury does not prevent a conviction, but it does concentrate the prosecution’s case on testimony. The strength of that testimony, its internal consistency and the reliability of the account over time, becomes the central question in most of these cases.
Evidence: what these cases are built on
Because no physical injury needs to be proved, medical evidence rarely drives the outcome. The complainant’s account is the prosecution’s primary evidence. That account is usually supported by some combination of a 999 call made at or around the time of the alleged incident, body-worn camera footage from the officers who attended, medical notes recording what the complainant said and what they observed (which frequently includes no visible injury to the neck), messages between the parties, and any other witnesses present.
The quality and consistency of all of that material matters. Where there are differences between what was said in the 999 call, what was told to officers at the scene, what appears in a formal first account, and what is later said in a written statement, those differences become significant. The timing and circumstances of the complaint are relevant too, particularly in cases arising from a relationship breakdown where the allegation comes some time after the alleged incident, or where there are separate proceedings between the parties.
The full digital record between the parties, phones, messages, call logs and the communication history in the period around the alleged incident, is routinely important. What was said before and after the event can fundamentally change the picture. Early instruction matters because that material needs to be obtained and analysed before the prosecution’s case is presented in its final form.
Consent
Section 75A includes a limited consent defence. Where the complainant genuinely consented to the act, that consent can in principle be a complete defence. The limitation is material: consent is unavailable where the complainant suffered serious harm, defined as injury amounting to actual bodily harm or worse, and the defendant either intended to cause that harm or was reckless as to whether it was caused. This reflects the principle established in R v Brown that a person cannot consent to serious injury being inflicted on them.
In practice, the consent defence applies in a relatively narrow category of cases, most commonly those arising from consensual sexual activity where the parties understood the nature of what was occurring. In most domestic allegations consent is not the central issue. Where it is raised, the forensic question is whether any injury reaches the threshold that removes it as a defence. Independent medical evidence on that issue may be necessary.
False and exaggerated complaints
A significant proportion of non-fatal strangulation allegations arise from relationship breakdowns. The complaint is sometimes made immediately; sometimes it follows days or weeks of reflection. The allegation may be connected to other proceedings, a dispute about children, matrimonial finances, or an injunction application. The emotional circumstances of the breakdown are the backdrop against which the account needs to be assessed.
None of this means a complaint is untrue. Many are genuine, and the courts treat this offence seriously for exactly that reason. But the context in which an allegation is made, the prior relationship between the parties, and the internal consistency of the account are all legitimate areas of scrutiny. Prior communications between the parties, messages in which either of them described what happened or made statements inconsistent with the complaint, the timing of the allegation and any other proceedings, and the presence or absence of independent corroboration are all relevant.
Where a complainant’s account cannot withstand that scrutiny, the case may be addressed before charge through pre-charge representations to the CPS, at a CPS review, or at trial. The earlier the evidence is fully analysed, the more effective those representations tend to be.
Sentencing
Non-fatal strangulation is triable either way. In the magistrates’ court the maximum sentence is 12 months’ imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum is five years, rising to seven years where the offence is charged as racially or religiously aggravated under section 29 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
A dedicated sentencing guideline came into effect on 1 January 2025. The offence range under the guideline runs from a high-level community order at the lower end to four years and six months’ custody at the upper end, with the statutory maximum at five years. All strangulation offences are treated as inherently involving serious harm because of the terror and risk involved. The guideline then distinguishes cases by culpability: sustained strangulation, use of a ligature, strangulation as part of a wider pattern of violence, and the vulnerability of the complainant all push culpability upward. A single incident where the defendant desisted quickly, with no lasting injury and genuine personal mitigation, sits at the lower end.
Three Court of Appeal decisions establish the relevant framework. In R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452, one of the first appeals to consider sentencing for this specific offence, the court set out an 18-month starting point for a typical case. The court was clear that a custodial sentence will ordinarily be appropriate absent truly exceptional mitigation, and that the ABH sentencing guidelines should not simply be transposed to strangulation cases because, unlike ABH, the offence does not require proof of physical harm. R v Yorke [2023] EWCA Crim 1043 reaffirmed those principles and added that early victim statements may not reflect the full extent of long-term psychological effects, which sentencers should bear in mind. R v Butler [2023] EWCA Crim 800 addressed the position where strangulation is charged alongside other violent offences: the strangulation count should drive the sentencing exercise, with any accompanying violence treated as an uplift rather than the primary factor.
For a defendant who is convicted or who pleads guilty, the mitigation exercise matters considerably. An early guilty plea, genuine remorse, the absence of previous convictions, engagement with a domestic violence programme, strong personal references, and evidence of the impact a custodial sentence would have on dependants can all make a material difference to the sentence imposed. Those arguments must be properly developed with evidence rather than asserted in general terms from the dock.
Illustrative example
A man is arrested and charged with non-fatal strangulation following a complaint from his former partner. The couple separated three months before the alleged incident. A dispute about contact arrangements for their daughter was ongoing at the time, and a hearing had taken place ten days before the arrest. The prosecution relies on the complainant’s account, a 999 call made the same night, and body-worn footage showing the complainant was visibly upset when officers arrived. A medical examination records no visible injury to the neck or throat.
Wilson Reed obtains the complete message and call history between the parties. The messages in the 36 hours before the alleged incident show a series of hostile exchanges in which the complainant made explicit threats about the outcome of the contact proceedings. During the period she says she was attacked, the defendant’s phone shows him responding to two messages, which are time-stamped within the alleged window. The complainant’s account to the 999 operator, her first account to officers at the scene, and her subsequent written statement contain significant inconsistencies about where in the property the incident occurred and how it ended. A review of GP records shows a prior allegation of violence made by the complainant against the defendant two years earlier, which the CPS had declined to charge.
Pre-charge representations are made to the CPS, setting out the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, the timing and context of the complaint, and the phone evidence that was inconsistent with her version of events. The CPS reviews the file and concludes the evidential test for a realistic prospect of conviction is not met. No charge is brought.
If you have been arrested or charged
Non-fatal strangulation is a serious allegation. Police and prosecutors move quickly from arrest to charge in most cases, and the evidence the Crown relies on is usually assembled before a solicitor is involved. The earlier we are instructed, the more we can do: examining the full evidential picture before the prosecution’s case is finalised, making pre-charge representations where the evidence does not meet the threshold, and identifying the specific weaknesses in the prosecution’s account that will matter at trial if the case proceeds.
If you have been arrested, have been invited for a voluntary interview, or have been charged, contact Wilson Reed for a confidential consultation.
