Appeal court judges have urged courts to recognise the gravity of choking, strangling and neck compression after extending the prison sentence of a man who assaulted two children.
The Crown appealed against the 14-month sentence handed to the man who was found guilty of assaulting two children over a sustained period.
The appeal court judges found the sentence imposed at Falkirk Sheriff Court earlier this year was “unduly lenient”.
They found seizing one child by the neck and repeatedly seizing the other child by her throat and compressing it, restricting her breathing to the danger of her life, were “conspicuously serious features”.
The court quashed the original sentence and imposed a cumulative sentence of five years and six months imprisonment on the man, who has not been named for legal reasons.
The opinion of Lord Beckett the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Wise, Lord Clark, published on Friday, said: “Taking account of the gravity of the respondent’s offending, the period over which it was committed, the breach of trust involved, the vulnerability of the children given their age and situation, and such limited mitigating factors as there were, primarily the absence of previous convictions, we are in no doubt that the sentence imposed was unduly lenient and that it is appropriate to impose a different, and longer, sentence.”
They also took the opportunity to highlight that while the case in question is not a sexual offence, consent is not a defence to an assault.
The judges said: “For conduct such as choking, strangling or inhibiting another person’s breathing in any context, sexual or otherwise, consent is not a defence. Such conduct is always a crime.”
They urged courts to reflect the gravity of such offences in sentencing.
The judges said: “We consider that courts in Scotland, if they are not already doing so, must recognise the gravity of choking, strangling and neck compression generally, and similar conduct, and reflect its gravity in sentencing to deter conduct that is prevalent, insidious, harmful, often controlling and always extremely dangerous.
“Such conduct merits severe punishment. It is necessary to protect the public, and particularly women and children who are frequently the victims of such conduct, from people who would perform such actions.”
The Crown had also argued the sheriff erred in declining to impose a non-harassment order in the case.
The judges considered the issue and found that on a balance of probabilities, they would be “appropriate”.
They imposed orders banning the man from attempting to approach, contact or communicate with one of the victims for an indefinite duration, and the other for five years.