Key Points
- Keith McMillan, aged 51, who lives on St James Drive in Bootle, attacked his wife Linda by throwing bread in her face followed by strangulation that lasted for about 20 seconds.
- The attack took place on 15 July 2025, only a few weeks after McMillan got community order following an assault on the same woman, thus it was his third incident of violence with his wife.
- According to the Liverpool Crown Court report, the couple who were married for 13 years had an “unstable” marriage history and there had been other instances of violence between the couple before, including two battery offenses.
- At first, McMillan denied the charge of assaulting his wife in a police interview saying that she “wasn’t telling the truth,” but he finally admitted to one charge of assaulting her causing actual harm during the trial. Judge David Swinnerton gave him a jail term of 16 months.
Bootle Crime (Liverpool standard) September 17, 2026 – A grandfather from Bootle has been sentenced to 16 months in prison after admitting he threw a loaf of bread at his wife’s head and then strangled her, an attack that followed a pattern of repeated domestic violence against the same partner.
Liverpool Crown Court heard on Thursday that McMillan, an electrician now living on St James Drive in Bootle, carried out the assault at the couple’s former home in Litherland in July 2025, only weeks after a court had imposed a community order on him for a previous episode of violence against his wife, Linda.
The judge, David Swinnerton, told McMillan:
“It was not fleeting and she was struggling to breathe. You can strangle someone without leaving a mark but still bring them close to unconsciousness or death, which is why strangulation is seen as a red flag.”
Third assault on same partner
Prosecutor Ken Grant told the court that McMillan and his wife had been married for 13 years, but their relationship was described as “troubled” due to previous incidents of domestic violence.
On 14 July 2025, both had been drinking at their then home in Litherland when they began arguing “over a meal”, which resulted in McMillan pushing his partner out of the address before the row continued outside, the court heard.
The following day, 15 July 2025, McMillan was working on the property’s electrics when another argument developed between the couple.
This led to McMillan throwing a loaf of bread at his wife, hitting her in the head, before placing his hands around her neck and squeezing, leaving her struggling to breathe, according to the prosecution.
He then released his grip before “striking a fingernail into her left temple”, causing a “visible mark”, the court was told.
The victim called 999 that evening, and McMillan was subsequently arrested on 31 July 2025, but he denied having committed the assault under interview, claiming that his “wife wasn’t telling the truth”, Liverpool Crown Court heard.
Previous convictions and community order
The court was told that McMillan has two previous convictions for battery against his wife, including being handed a community order only a month before his latest attack, making this the third occasion on which the electrician has assaulted her.
Callum Ross, defending, told the court that McMillan had provided three references that spoke highly of him, describing him as a “hard working, dependable electrician who takes pride in his work”.
Ross said: “Alcohol really is the problem for him. One may think it is the root cause of a lot of his antecedent record. That is a problem that probation think they can assist him with.”
The defence also noted that McMillan has a newborn baby granddaughter, aged 10 weeks, and that he told his lawyer his aim was to be released, get back “on the straight and narrow” and provide for his family, while accepting that the relationship with his wife was finished.
Judge’s sentencing remarks and 16-month jail term
McMillan admitted one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the day he was due to stand trial, appearing via video link from HMP Liverpool, and was jailed for 16 months.
In sentencing, Judge Swinnerton said:
“You have got previous convictions. Alcohol seems to have been a problem for about 20 years. In yet another argument, you threw bread at her but, most significantly, grabbed her round her throat and held on for about 20 seconds. It was not fleeting, and she was struggling to breathe.”
The judge added:
“That caused, in terms of physical injuries, relatively minor injuries. But it has caused psychological damage to her. What she describes is an unhappy picture. Strangulation has dangers that go far beyond and above the actual physical damage that is caused.”
Swinnerton continued:
“You can strangle someone without leaving a mark but still bring them close to unconsciousness or death, which is why strangulation is seen as a red flag offence. It is a deeply worrying offence in the context of domestic violence. You can cause a great deal of harm really quickly.”
Addressing McMillan’s repeated offending, the judge said:
“I am dealing with someone who, within a month of that sentence, commits another assault against the same woman. I take the view that this sentence has to be immediate because of that. It is the third time against this woman, not long after the second time.”
He warned:
“All that is going to happen if you keep drinking and assaulting her, or any future partner, is you are going to spend longer and longer in prison. You have a record now building up of violence against women. Think about how you want to behave when you come out.”
Background to the development
Domestic strangulation cases have increasingly been treated as high-risk indicators in UK courts and by police forces, with guidance highlighting that non-fatal strangulation can precede more serious violence or homicide even when visible injuries are minimal.
In this case, the sequence of events – two prior battery convictions, a recent community order, and then a further assault involving strangulation within weeks – exemplifies the pattern that prosecutors and judges have flagged as particularly concerning in domestic abuse proceedings.
The Crown Prosecution Service and judicial guidance in England and Wales have in recent years emphasised that strangulation should be charged and sentenced in a way that reflects its potential lethality, regardless of the extent of visible injury, and that repeat offending against the same victim is an aggravating factor.
McMillan’s sentence follows a broader trend in which courts are imposing immediate custodial terms for repeat domestic assaults, especially where strangulation is involved and where earlier non-custodial sentences have not prevented further violence.
Prediction: how this development may affect survivors and local communities
For survivors of domestic abuse in Bootle and across Merseyside, this case is likely to reinforce both fear and a sense that the criminal justice system is beginning to treat repeated violence more seriously, particularly where strangulation is used.
The judge’s explicit description of strangulation as a “red flag” offence, and his emphasis on the psychological harm as well as physical injury, may encourage more victims to come forward and report similar incidents, knowing that courts are being urged to view such behaviour as inherently dangerous.
At the same time, the details – including the short gap between a community order and a further assault – may deepen concerns among support services that non-custodial sentences alone are insufficient to protect high-risk victims when perpetrators have a history of repeated violence and alcohol-related offending.
Local domestic abuse charities and police domestic abuse units are likely to cite cases like McMillan’s in training and public messaging to highlight the importance of early intervention, risk assessment, and the need for robust enforcement of protective measures when previous orders are breached or ignored.
Over time, if courts continue to impose immediate prison sentences in similar repeat strangulation cases, this could shift expectations among both perpetrators and victims about the likely consequences of further assaults, potentially deterring some offenders while giving survivors greater confidence that reports will lead to meaningful protective action.
