Criminal Justice Committee 21 May 2025
My concern about looking for potentially quicker alternatives is whether they would be as effective. For example, if strangulation was an aggravator, would that minimise the harms? We are looking at an exceptionally serious crime that merits a law in itself so that it is recognised as exceptionally high risk. You are seven or eight times more likely to be murdered later by someone who has strangled you. As Cath White said earlier, strangulation is different to other forms of abuse. The outcomes are severe and cannot get worse, because it can result in death. Strangulation is the strongest predictor of that.
I would also be concerned about how that looks to a victim/survivor. Does it minimise what they have been through? We want to make sure that outcomes are proportionate to the crime. Having a stand-alone crime rather than an aggravator offers legal clarity and precision in the process, and victims/survivors recognise that, too.
I had a discussion the other day about the issue. We have the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse Scotland. If you are concerned about a partner, and they have an abusive past, that is disclosed to you and you can see that they have a conviction for domestic abuse. We know that it is usually minimised or trivialised by them—they say that it was just a slap, or just this or that. A stand-alone crime of non-fatal strangulation could act as a stronger deterrent and send out a stronger message. It could, I hope, prevent somebody from going into a relationship that is exceptionally high risk.
In short, I am worried that any other approach minimises the severity and risk of the crime and does not give victims/survivors the justice that they absolutely deserve.