A dad who claimed his extended jail term for trying to suffocate his former partner was "manifestly excessive" has had his appeal bid dismissed.
Mark McGinty, 35, was jailed last August for eight and a half years, with a three-year extended licence for attacking the 23-year-old woman in Kirkham after she requested him to have a drug test before allowing him to see their toddler.
After sending a series of messages, furious McGinty, pictured, lay in wait as she returned to her mother’s home at 4am on May 21 2017 after a night out.
As he tried to strangle her he shouted: “I’m going to kill you. If I don’t get to see my son neither will you - I’ll kill you.”
He is believed to have rained between 15 and 20 violent blows on her before the cloth was put back over her nose and mouth, causing her to fear she would suffocate.
He punched her face, knocking her to the ground, put the cloth over her nose and mouth with his left hand and grasped her neck.
McGinty, of Stourton Road, Liverpool, pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm at Preston Crown Court, and a charge of making threats to kill was ordered to lie on file.
McGinty took his case to London's Court of Appeal on the grounds that the judge erred in finding that he was dangerous, adopted too high a starting point under sentencing guidelines; and passed a sentence that was "manifestly excessive".
But Mrs Justice Lang, sitting with Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Phillips, refused his application to appeal.
Their judgement said: " In summary, the facts were that the applicant violently attacked the complainant, who was his former partner and mother of his son, late at night outside her home.
He repeatedly punched, kicked and stamped on her face and head. He attempted to strangle her, using his hand around her neck, and held a cloth over her face, which suffocated her. He shouted that he would kill her and she feared that she was going to die.
"The complainant suffered fractures to her face, a broken nose, damage to facial nerves and teeth, and her sight had been affected. She injured her ribs. She has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and has been prescribed antidepressants. She has had to give up work and she is now frightened to leave the house.
" In our judgment, the judge was entitled to assess the applicant as dangerous within the meaning of section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on the evidence before him, even though the applicant did not have a history of violence.
" The pre-sentence report stated that in the commission of this offence the applicant had demonstrated poor temper control, controlling and manipulative behaviours, distorted thinking, an inability to manage rejection, sexual jealousy and excessive violence. He was angry that his ex-partner was out late and seeing other men.
"The author concluded that this offence was triggered by the specific circumstances in the applicant's relationship and therefore he did not present a continuing risk to the public of serious harm by the commission of further offences and so did not meet the dangerousness criteria. However, she assessed him as representing a high risk of serious harm to female partners.
"In our view, the judge was entitled to find that there was a significant risk that the applicant would commit further specified offences and thereby cause serious harm to others, in particular female partners."