R v Jones 2025
J was charged with intentional strangulation of two complainants under section 75A(1)(a) of the Serious Crime Act 2015. At trial, the judge directed the jury that the offence could be committed by either intentional strangulation or by intentionally applying force that affected the complainant's ability to breathe. The jury convicted J on the strangulation charges. J appealed, arguing that the judge's directions improperly included elements of the separate offence of suffocation under section 75A(1)(b) which was not charged.
J submitted that section 75A creates two distinct offences - intentional strangulation under (1)(a) and suffocation by battery under (1)(b) - and that the judge erroneously directed the jury on elements of suffocation when only strangulation was charged. The Crown argued that the judge's directions, though imperfect, were ultimately cured by the final direction focusing on the evidence of strangulation by force to the neck.
Held
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the convictions for intentional strangulation under section 75A(1)(a) were safe.
The court held that the plain meaning of section 75A is that it creates a single offence that can be committed by either intentional strangulation or an act constituting battery affecting the victim's breathing ability. The court found the decision in R v Hughes ( [2024] EWCA Crim 593) supported this interpretation. While the initial directions were imperfect, the judge's final directions properly focused the jury on the strangulation evidence and did not cause unfairness.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
