R v Graham Fynan [2026] EWCA Crim 802
[1]On 9 December 2025, following his trial at Stevenage Magistrates' Court, the appellant was convicted of one offence of intentional strangulation, contrary to section 75A(1)(a) and (5) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.[2]On 3 February 2026, he was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.[3]On 27 February 2026, in the Crown Court at St Albans, he was sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment.[4]The appellant now appeals against that sentence with the leave of the single judge.[5]The offence took place on 8 June 2024. On that day the appellant and his partner went out with the victim and her parents, drinking in the local public houses in Hoddesdon. The appellant and his partner live in the same block of flats and on the same landing as the victim's parents. They all returned to their respective flats.[6]The victim then went out drinking again with the appellant's partner, at her request. Aggrieved, the appellant attended the public house. He was aggressive and called his partner a "fucking bitch" and a "slag". The victim stood in front of the appellant's partner to protect her. The appellant told the victim that he would "fucking kill her". The victim did not feel threatened at this point, or fear that he would do anything to her. The appellant left when other members of the public told him to do so.[7]The victim and the appellant's partner returned to the flat of the victim's parents. As they entered the block, the victim saw the appellant who he called a "whore". He continued to insult her from the street as she had a cigarette on the balcony. She returned to her parents' flat.[8]The appellant then threw clothes belonging to his partner at the door of the flat of the victim's parents. When the victim emerged to collect the dog belonging to the appellant's partner, the appellant struck her with an open hand, causing her to fall to the ground. As she got up, he grabbed her by the throat and squeezed so hard that she could not breathe. He threw her back to the ground. As she got up, he punched her to the face. The victim's mother then pulled her into the flat. The victim experienced reddening to her neck.[9]The police were called and the appellant, then back in his own flat, was arrested. He was initially aggressive, until he realised it was the police.[10]In interview he denied going to the public house and denied that the offence had occurred.[11]In an Impact Statement, dated 23 February 2026, the victim spoke of still struggling to get through the day as a consequence of the assault. She did not feel able to visit her parents, which meant that she saw less of her mother with whom she was close. She had not been able to attend family events. She said that she still struggled to leave the house, except for work, and was not sleeping properly. She was undergoing therapy at her own expense.[12]The appellant was aged 60 years at sentence. He was of previous good character. The judge had references from those who knew him to the effect that this incident was out of character.[13]The appellant continued to deny the offence to the author of the pre-sentence report. In her view, this denial increased his risk to the victim and others. He presented to her with poor problem solving skills, which could lead to physical assaults whilst angry and frustrated in a social setting. He showed no victim empathy. The author said that, whilst he would benefit from interventions to understand the triggers for his behaviour, she expressed concerns as to his motivation levels to engage with such a requirement due to his lack of acceptance of responsibility. Although the risk assessment tools described him at low risk of reconviction, the author of the report took a different view, assessing such risk as medium. She said that this was because the tools are not specifically designed to predict all behaviour associated with alcohol risk incidents or domestic abuse. The author proposed that any sentence of imprisonment be suspended, with requirements of rehabilitation activity and alcohol abstinence monitoring. The appellant was not suitable for unpaid work by reason of his medical conditions.[14]In her sentencing remarks, the judge described the offence as "really serious"; it carried a maximum term of five years' imprisonment. She placed the offence within category 1B of the relevant sentencing guideline. It fell within category B culpability, as the appellant's culpability fell between the higher and lesser culpability factors, as set out in the guideline. It fell within category 1 harm, in her view, as she found that the offence had resulted in what she described as a substantial psychological effect on the victim, which in turn had a substantial effect on her ability to carry out her normal day to day activities. The judge noted in particular that the victim described having to take a week off work and force herself out of the house to go to work. This categorisation afforded a starting point of two years and six months' imprisonment, with a range of 18 months to three years and six months. The offence was aggravated, the judge said, by the appellant being intoxicated through alcohol at the time. She described the appellant's lack of previous convictions as the main mitigating factor.[15]The judge noted the appellant's attitude to the offence, as set out in the pre-sentence report. She found that he posed a risk to others for the reasons set out by the author. Taking all of the factors together, she arrived at the sentence we have set out.[16]The appellant submits that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive on two grounds. First, Mr Burke, for whose submissions we are grateful, submits that the judge wrongly categorised the offence within the guideline and so adopted too high a starting point. In this regard, Mr Burke submits that the judge erred in concluding that the victim had suffered a severe psychological condition which had a substantial effect on her ability to carry out her normal day to day activities, or on her ability to work. He points out that the guideline itself says that all cases of strangulation involve a high degree of inherent harm, and therefore to fall within category 1 the degree of harm has to be very high indeed. He places reliance on the fact that there was no corroboration of the victim's claims in her impact statement. The appellant took particular issue with her assertion that she had not visited her parents since the incident, as he had seen her at the flats. Mr Burke submits that the case properly fell within category 2B of the guideline, as both parties had originally submitted.[17]Second, Mr Burke submits that the judge failed to make sufficient reduction to the sentence imposed for the appellant's mitigation. In particular, he relies on the appellant's age, good character and ill-health. He had suffered from a bleed on the brain since the incident, which impacted upon his ability to work.[18]There is a medical report available to us (although not to the judge below), which confirms that the appellant had suffered from a bleed to the brain. The fact that he had was set out in the pre-sentence report.[19]Mr Burke also points to the appellant's caring responsibilities for his mother, who is unfortunately ill with cancer, and to the fact that the appellant had taken steps to address his alcohol intake since the offence.[20]We have reflected on those submissions but find ourselves unable to accept them.[21]We agree with the judge that this was a serious offence. Whilst intoxicated through drink and angry with his partner, the appellant seriously assaulted the victim. With no provocation on her part, he slapped and punched her, and knocked her to the ground twice. That assault took the form of strangulation. He squeezed the victim's neck until she could not breathe. It is rightly not suggested that anything other than a custodial sentence was appropriate in those circumstances.[22]In coming to her assessment of the harm caused to the victim, the judge was entitled to rely on her impact statement. Corroboration of it was not necessary. It was clear from that statement that the victim had been seriously affected by the assault. Her ability to work, leave the house and visit her parents were all compromised by the appellant's actions. Her sleep remained affected nearly two years after the incident, and she required therapy. That was the harm which the sentence needed to reflect.[23]This court has often said that the categories within the sentencing guidelines are not tramlines. In our view, this case clearly illustrates that point. We consider that the judge was entitled to find that the harm described in the impact statement fell within category 1 of the guideline. However, even if the level of psychological harm could not be described as severe and the case fell within harm category 2, there was a clear, significant and long lasting impact on the victim, such as to require a substantial uplift to the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment. The range for a category 2B offence is one to three years' imprisonment.[24]In our view, the nature of the assault, the appellant's intoxication and the impact on the victim would have justified a starting point in the region of a category 1B offence.[25]As for mitigation, we are unpersuaded that the judge failed to take it properly into account. She was aware of the appellant's age and of his medical condition, which was set out in the pre-sentence report. She took proper account of his lack of previous convictions.[26]It follows that we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. ______________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________