A rapist who tried to pervert the course of justice with threatening text messages has had his sentence quashed after his case was heard before the Court of Appeal.
However, he will still spend nearly 10 years behind bars.
In a judgment released today from an August 1 hearing, Justices Mark Cooper, Timothy Brewer and Mary Peters allowed the man's appeal, quashed his sentence for rape, and imposed a new length of imprisonment.
The man, whose identity is suppressed, was jailed for 10 years and two months after being found guilty of 12 charges for the violent rape of the mother of his child in June 2015.
He was visiting the woman to celebrate their son's birthday before an argument ensued, the decision reads.
During the scuffle the man picked up a 30cm long stainless steel knife and held it against her neck, shouting at her and threatening to kill her, a summary of the offending states.
He then forced the woman from the kitchen and into a bedroom where he started to strangle her.
A scarf was wrapped around her neck, and he began tightening it.
When he stopped he apologised and said that he would now have to kill her to stop her phoning police and him being sent to jail.
He again forced her back on to the bed, restrained her wrists and made further attempts to strangle her with a scarf.
But she managed to escape, the decision reads.
As the violence continued in the lounge and kitchen, the woman tried to defend herself by throwing a frying pan at the man.
But she was overpowered and dragged back into a bedroom where he again threatened to kill her, restrained her and strangled her until she lost consciousness.
The man then left the property to collect the pair's son, but returned a short time later alone and raped her.
The woman contacted police and charges were laid.
A further charge was laid after the man texted the woman to try to persuade her to withdraw her complaint.
The case went to trial but was abandoned after the woman became "distressed to such an extent that the trial judge formed the view that there would be adverse effects on the jury".
Immediately before the retrial, the man sought a sentence indication, which Judge Charles Blackie said would be of 10 years and nine months' imprisonment.
The man then pleaded guilty. A sentence report also showed that he demonstrated remorse and had pleaded guilty to spare the woman the stress of enduring further court proceedings.
The man's remorse led to a discount and eventual sentence of 10 years and two months.
However, this year, he appealed the sentence and claimed it was "excessive".
The man's lawyer, Nigel Cooke, argued at the August hearing that the starting point adopted by Judge Blackie was too high.
He said four to six years would have been sufficient and a three-year uplift for the violence before the rape would then have been appropriate, along with a further three months for trying to pervert the course of justice.
He also argued the judge should have made a greater allowance for his client's guilty plea, and for not forcing the woman to give evidence again.
Crown prosecutor Emma Hoskin submitted that Judge Blackie had correctly viewed the offending because of the "persistent, protracted and repetitive" strangling of the victim.
The Court of Appeal justices said Judge Blackie had not erred when applying a past judgment or the rape's aggravating features.
However, they did see "an element of double counting" if an uplift of three and a half years' imprisonment was added for the other violent offending.
"In a sense there was one overall incident," the three judges said.
The judges rejected Cooke's argument that a more generous discount should have been afforded to his client for his guilty plea.
"We consider the resultant effective sentence of nine years and four months on
the rape will adequately reflect the overall gravity of the offending," they said.
The other sentences, to be served concurrently, remain.