Andy Rootsey acted for a London professional man, of previous good character who faced two counts of intentional strangulation and one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm will be spared a prison sentence, after the Crown offered no evidence on all three of the most serious counts and accepted guilty pleas to two counts of common assault instead.
The resolution was reached shortly before our client’s trial listed at Southwark Crown Court on the 19 August 2026, following sustained negotiation with the prosecution over a period in which the Crown had previously repeatedly refused to accept lesser pleas.
The allegations
Our client and his wife had spent an evening out in London drinking and returned in the early hours to the five-star hotel where they were staying. An argument between them had begun in the taxi on the way back and continued once they arrived. In the hotel corridor a night porter intervened. There was a confrontation between the porter and our client, in the course of which the porter ended up on the floor. During the incident it was alleged that our client had intentionally strangled both his wife and the porter and the Prosecution relied on CCTV evidence and witness testimony from both the complainants.
He was later charged on an indictment containing three counts:
• Count 1: assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, alleging that he had punched his wife in the taxi.
• Count 2: intentional strangulation of his wife, contrary to section 75A(1)(a) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
• Count 3: intentional strangulation of the night porter, contrary to the same provision.
What was at stake
The gap between what our client faced and what he ultimately pleaded to was very wide indeed.
Intentional strangulation is an either-way offence created by section 70 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and carries a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. It does not require proof of any injury at all. In R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452 the Court of Appeal held that a custodial sentence will be appropriate save in exceptional circumstances, ordinarily an immediate one, with a starting point of 18 months. The Sentencing Council’s dedicated guideline, in force since 1 January 2025, consolidates that approach. Where the offence arises in a domestic context, the overarching domestic abuse guideline treats that as making the offence more serious rather than less.
Two such counts, one of them domestic, alongside a section 47 allegation, put our client squarely in the frame for an immediate custodial sentence. Common assault, by contrast, is a summary-only offence carrying a maximum of six months. That difference is the difference between a man going to prison and a man going home.
The defence position
The defence case was set out in a detailed defence statement served under section 5 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. It was neither a blanket denial nor an attempt to blame anyone else. Our client accepted from the outset that he had lost his temper, that he had used unlawful force, that he was mortified by his actions, and that he was guilty of common assault. What he disputed was the character and the gravity of what he had done.
• He denied punching his wife in the taxi and denied causing her any injury consistent with actual bodily harm. He accepted that a verbal argument had taken place during the journey but not that any physical contact had occurred.
• In relation to his wife, he accepted pushing her backwards against a wall using his left hand against her upper right shoulder, and accepted that his fingers came to rest in the vicinity of the side of her neck. He denied applying any pressure or force to her neck or airway, and denied doing anything that restricted her breathing.
• In relation to the porter, he accepted taking hold of the upper part of the man’s shirt and tie with his left hand and pushing him backwards across the corridor, where the porter fell onto a sofa and then to the floor. He denied that his hand ever made contact with the porter’s neck, and denied any obstruction or compression of the airway.
That distinction matters and as discussed in the leading case of R-v-Jones [2025] EWCA Crim 195, Section 75A is not made out by force to the shoulder, the chest, or the collar of a shirt. It requires strangulation, or an act affecting the ability to breathe. The defence case was that the prosecution could not prove that element on either count, and that what the footage in fact showed was an agitated man pushing two people, which is common assault and nothing more.
The ABH count falls away
Count 1 was the first to go. No medical evidence and no evidence of any injury had been served in support of it. The prosecution file itself recorded that neither complainant had sustained any injury. The defence gave notice in the defence statement of an intention to apply to dismiss the count on that basis. The Crown subsequently dropped it for want of evidence, and the application never had to be argued.
That mattered for more than one reason. It removed the count that carried the allegation of punching, it narrowed the indictment to the two strangulation counts, and it demonstrated to the prosecution that the file would not withstand close scrutiny.
Negotiating acceptable pleas
The Crown had until that point been steadfast in refusing to accept pleas to common assault. Offers of a plea on that basis had been made and refused more than once.
Prosecutors are not free to accept whatever is offered. Under the Attorney General’s Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas and the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the Crown must be satisfied that any pleas accepted properly reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending, give the court adequate sentencing powers, and enable the case to be presented on a clear and accurate factual basis. The task for the defence was therefore not to ask for a concession but to demonstrate why a common assault disposal was the outcome that accurately reflected what the evidence could actually prove.
The negotiation was conducted over a sustained period, addressing the evidential difficulties on each strangulation count in turn, the absence of any injury or medical evidence, what the CCTV did and did not show about hand placement, and the realistic prospects of a jury being sure of the strangulation element to the criminal standard. Our client’s willingness to plead to common assault from an early stage, and to be sentenced on a clear and honest basis, was a material part of the argument.
Shortly before the trial date the Crown accepted the position. It offered no evidence on both counts of intentional strangulation, and guilty pleas were instead entered to common assault.
The outcome
Our client will be sentenced on the basis of the pleas in September 2026 but is now in no danger of being required to serve a custodial sentence. He leaves the proceedings having accepted responsibility for what he did do, and without a conviction for an offence he has consistently and, on the evidence, properly denied and without having to endure the trial process where the final result and verdicts were far from guaranteed.
Comment
Two points are worth noting.
The first is about precision. A defence that accepts what can be proved and contests only what cannot, can be far more powerful than one that denies everything. Here, the client’s early and consistent acceptance that he had assaulted both complainants, together with his remorse for his actions gave the defence the credibility to argue, seriously, that the strangulation element was not there. A blanket denial would have handed the Crown a simple task at Trial.
The second is about persistence. The prosecution’s initial refusal to accept lesser pleas was not the end of the discussion. Charging decisions and plea positions are subject to continuing review, and a case that looks immovable at the outset can move once the evidence has been served, the defence has been articulated, and the difficulties have been set out in writing. Getting there requires the groundwork to have been done, and it requires the willingness to keep making the argument.
Strangulation charges are being brought in increasing numbers and are treated by the courts, quite rightly, as serious. That is precisely why it matters that the charge fits the conduct. Where it does not, the point has to be taken and taken with precision and persistence.
Charles Langley KC of 2 Bedford Row Chambers was instructed Counsel
Our criminal defence team acts in serious violence and domestic abuse cases in the Crown Court for professionals from investigation and charge through to trial. Early advice on charge and plea strategy materially affects outcomes.
