Court dismisses appeal in domestic violence case

22 Jan 2025Court Report

The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal upheld a sentence in a domestic violence case involving non-fatal strangulation

Background and Case Details

The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal recently upheld a sentence in a case involving domestic violence, specifically non-fatal strangulation, underlining the seriousness of such offences. The case, cited as [2023] NICA 45, involved an appellant challenging the severity of his sentence following convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Sentencing Considerations

The offence carried a maximum penalty of seven years, and the sentencing judge was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence based on the defendant's culpability and the harm caused to the victim. The court considered various aggravating factors, including the domestic nature of the violence, the repeated nature of the strangulation incidents, and the appellant's prior convictions for similar offences.

Culpability and Harm

The trial judge assessed the appellant's culpability as high, noting the deliberate and repeated nature of the assaults, which included strangulation. The harm was also considered significant, despite the lack of visible physical injuries, due to the psychological trauma inflicted on the victim. The court referenced guideline cases to support the classification of harm and the need for deterrent sentences in such cases.

Appeal Points

The appellant's grounds of appeal included claims that the starting point for sentencing was excessive and that the harm was overestimated. The appeal also argued that the judge had erred in his assessment of the appellant's dangerousness under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008.

Court's Analysis

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, affirming that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and guideline cases. The court emphasised the seriousness of non-fatal strangulation and the psychological impact on victims, which justified the high harm classification. The court also addressed the appellant's claim of double counting aggravators, clarifying that the same facts could inform assessments of both culpability and harm without constituting double counting.

Assessment of Dangerousness

The court considered whether the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public, a requirement for imposing an extended custodial sentence. Despite contrary assessments from the Probation Service and a psychologist, the trial judge found a pattern of violent behaviour, particularly in domestic settings, justifying the assessment of dangerousness.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge's decisions regarding culpability, harm, and dangerousness were well-founded and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.