The Offence: Section 75A, Serious Crime Act 2015
The offence of non-fatal strangulation came into force on 7 June 2022, having been introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Prior to this, cases in which a person was strangled but sustained no visible injuries were frequently charged only as common assault, which carries a significantly lower maximum sentence. Parliament created this standalone offence to reflect the inherent danger and the serious risk to life associated with strangulation.
Under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015, a person commits an offence if they intentionally strangle another person, or do any other act that affects the victim's ability to breathe and constitutes a battery.
Defining Strangulation and Suffocation
The courts apply the ordinary meaning of these terms, but the legal application is broad:
- Strangulation: Applying pressure to the neck (by hand, arm, or ligature) in a way that obstructs blood flow or the airway.
- Suffocation: Covering the mouth or nose, compressing the chest, or any other act that impedes the ability to breathe.
The prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant intended to kill or cause serious harm. It is sufficient to prove that the application of pressure to the neck or the act affecting breathing was intentional.
The Consent Defence and its Limitations
In cases involving consensual sexual activity, a defendant may argue that the complainant consented to the relevant act. However, the law is strict in this area. A person cannot lawfully consent to being caused serious harm.
If the act caused serious harm — which includes injuries at or above ABH level, such as significant bruising or swelling — the defence of consent is not available. Where no injury was caused and the defendant held a genuine and reasonable belief in the complainant's consent, a defence may still be available. Each case turns on its own facts.
Sentencing
Non-fatal strangulation is an either-way offence. The maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment, or seven years where the offence is racially or religiously aggravated. The Sentencing Council has issued a guideline for this offence, which sets out starting points according to culpability and harm.
| Category | Culpability Factors | Starting Point |
|---|---|---|
| High Culpability | Use of ligature, sustained pressure, background of domestic abuse | 18 months' custody |
| Lesser Culpability | Brief incident, no prior history, or significant provocation | High-level community order |
Even for a first-time offender with no previous convictions, immediate custody is the expected outcome where the strangulation was sustained rather than brief.
Defending Non-Fatal Strangulation Allegations
Because a conviction is likely to result in a custodial sentence, it is important to engage legal representation at the earliest possible stage — ideally before any decision to charge is made. A number of issues are commonly relevant to the defence:
- Intent: Whether the alleged act was accidental or amounted to a proportionate response in self-defence.
- Medical evidence: The absence of any marks or injuries in a case involving an alleged sustained attack may be relevant to the credibility of the account.
- Context: Communications and background evidence may show that an allegation has been fabricated or exaggerated, particularly where it arises in the context of a relationship breakdown.
Pre-charge engagement with the Crown Prosecution Service, presenting representations before any charging decision is made, can be particularly important in these cases.
What to Do if You Are Under Investigation
If you have been arrested or are under investigation for non-fatal strangulation, do not speak to the police without a solicitor present. You have an absolute right to free, independent legal advice at the police station, and exercising that right cannot be used against you.
The pre-charge stage is often the most important point in the case. Specialist legal advice at this stage allows representations to be made to the CPS, either challenging the evidence or arguing that a prosecution is not in the public interest.