• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Facts

3. I am required to make findings of fact consistent with the jury’s verdict and based on the evidence at trial: Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1 at [13]-[16]. I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any fact which would aggravate the offending (R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270 at 281 [27]) and satisfied on the balance of probabilities of any fact which would mitigate the offending (Olbrich at 281 [27]). Observing these principles, I make the following findings of fact.

Background

4. The victim and the offender first met in 2021. The offender was known to the victim’s mother and had on occasion cut the victim’s younger brother’s hair. The offender and the victim were introduced and developed a friendship. The victim began to confide in the offender about challenges she was experiencing in her life with respect to a past romantic relationship and stable accommodation. The victim came to view the offender as an "uncle” like figure.

5. For a period after July 2023 the victim was living in a refuge. The offender made an offer for the victim to move into his residence in Franklin. There was an arrangement whereby the victim would not pay rent but would contribute to the household by paying for groceries and assisting with household duties. The offender had two young children and from time to time the victim looked after them by preparing meals and attending to their needs when they were at the offender’s residence.

6. The victim and the offender began residing together in [redacted], Franklin sometime in October or November 2023. During the period the victim was residing with the offender, she slept in her own bedroom which was also the bedroom of the offender’s daughter.

7. The victim had her own key to the property, which the offender arranged for her. When the victim moved in with the offender, he assured her that he did not want marriage or a romantic relationship with her. He told the victim that he cared about her welfare and that he wanted her to be in a safe place.

8. The victim became acquainted with Ms Casey Mercer ("Ms Mercer") the mother of the offender’s daughter, Manon and Ms Alex Rowan ("Ms Rowan") the mother of the offender’s son, Jordan. The victim would on occasion communicate with them both about their children and attended ‘handover’ of the children with the offender.

Count 1: CC2024/6962 - Aggravated Common Assault

9. On 17 December 2023, the offender’s children were at the residence. The offender came into the kitchen and was “messing around” with the victim. The victim was wearing shorts and a shirt. The offender slapped her upper leg, near her buttock, with full force. The victim responded by hitting the offender on his penis.

10. The strike to the victim’s leg area left her initially with a red mark, which changed to green in colour and then became a darker mark.

11. The victim did not give the offender consent to strike this part of her body.

Count 2: CC2024/6963 - Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm

12. The same day, when the victim was speaking with the offender’s child, the offender punched her in the vulva causing pain and bruising. The victim went into the shower and observed that she was bleeding. The victim told the offender that she was unable to urinate and that she was in excruciating pain.

13. The prosecution tendered an image taken of the offender’s phone, which displayed a google search history containing the searches “how long to recover after getting a hit on vagina” and “what happens when you get hit on the man private part”.

Count 3: CC2024/6964 - Aggravated intimate observations or capturing visual data

14. On 19 December 2023, the victim was playing PlayStation 5 in the offender's bedroom. The offender was not in the room. The only television in the property was in the offender’s room. The victim fell asleep on the offender's bed. She was wearing black shorts and a red sweater.

15. When the victim woke up in the early hours of the morning, she was not wearing her shorts or her underwear. The offender was in bed and was sleeping, with his daughter Manon lying next to him. The victim was confused about how her clothing had been removed. She observed her clothing was on the floor on the left side near the door.

16. The victim took the offender's phone and found images of herself with no underwear on. The victim did not consent to the images being taken and had no knowledge of what had occurred. The victim discovered seven images of herself.

17. The victim took photographs of the images she found on the offender's phone. She also discovered that the offender had photographs of his former partner Ms Rowan in a state of undress in which she appeared to be sleeping.

18. The prosecution tendered the images which the victim took of the offender’s phone. The photos on the offender’s phone were taken by the victim between 5:47am and 6:24am on 22 December 2023. The images captured the victim’s back, buttocks and anus. In some of the images, the victim's red sweater could be seen. In two of the images, the offender's penis was captured, with the victim's buttocks in the background of the images.

Count 4: CC2024/6965 - Aggravated Act of Indecency Without Consent

19. In three of the images located on the offender's phone, the victim's naked buttocks are pictured, with the offender cupping her buttocks with his hand. Two other images located on the offender's phone captured the offender spreading the victim's buttocks, exposing her anus.

Count 5: CC2024/8512 - Aggravated Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

20. On a day around the start of January 2024, at the [redacted] property, the offender consumed some pills and was talking to the victim about committing suicide. The offender's daughter was present. The victim stated in evidence that this incident began with the offender trying to convince her that she should not have male friends, her clothing is inappropriate and that there were rumours that she was a ‘street girl’.

21. The victim tried to stop the offender from accessing his car keys and hid them. The offender went into Manon’s room and threw some items around, searching for his car keys. At some stage, the victim called 000.

22. The victim went into the offender's bathroom to see whether he had any more pills. While she was in there, the offender’s daughter came into the room and told the victim that the offender had a knife. The victim walked into the bedroom and saw the offender holding the knife, attempting to self-harm. The victim took the knife away from the offender.

23. The victim told the offender to calm down. The offender began walking around the room. Without warning the offender struck the victim to the eye, causing her to lose vision and a large amount of pain. The offender’s daughter was present. The victim observed her eye was red and later bruised from the strike.

24. The offender apologised to the victim and tried to assist her. Throughout this incident, the victim was upset, trying to deescalate the situation and ensure the safety of Manon.

Count 6: CC2024/6968 - Aggravated Common Assault (FV)

25. On a day between 1-31 January 2024, at around 10:00pm the offender and victim had an argument about their being ‘rumours’ about their relationship. The offender left the residence.

26. When he returned, around 02:00am the next day the victim was in her bedroom sleeping. The offender entered the victim's room and turned on the light. The offender began yelling at her to get out of the bed. The victim asked the offender to let her sleep.

27. The offender told the victim that he wanted her out of the house now and dragged her out of the bed by her leg. The offender told the victim that he was taking her out of the house. The victim was still in her pyjamas and did not have any of her possessions.

Count 7: CC2024/6966 - Aggravated Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (FV)

28. The offender then dragged the victim out to the living room. The victim asked the offender if she could retrieve her phone. The victim sat on the floor and told the offender that she was not leaving, and that she wanted her phone. The offender punched the victim in the nose, twice, causing it to bleed.

29. The victim began screaming at the offender. The offender yelled back at her, telling her that she was a feminist, and ‘arguing back’. The victim tried to push the offender away and which resulted in blood from her nose staining his shorts.

30. The victim later took photographs of the offender's shorts which had her blood on them. That photograph was tendered at the trial.

Count 8: CC2024/6967 - Aggravated Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (FV)

31. The victim attempted to return to her bedroom to retrieve her phone, however the offender would not permit it. The victim went and sat in the corner of the living room. The offender approached her and grabbed her head, forcing her head backwards and hitting it on the wall. The offender was screaming at the victim while he did this. The victim recalled ‘blacking out for a bit’ and putting her head down on the ground. The offender sat on the floor and lifted her head occasionally from the floor.

Count 10: CC2024/6969 - Aggravated Common Assault (FV)

32. Soon after, the offender grabbed the victim by the neck and dragged her out the door, so that she was outside the apartment. The victim resisted as she did not want to be locked out of the house and was concerned about her cat. The victim told the offender that she would leave after she retrieved her phone. The offender would not permit the victim to get her belongings. The victim had carpet burn on her elbows from where she was dragged. This caused the victim to have visible marks on her face and elbows.

33. When the offender let the victim back into the property, he told her that ‘women are jealous and want to ruin his life’.

Count 11: CC2024/6972 - Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (FV)

34. On an unknown date in January or February 2024 the victim and the offender had another argument over the offender spreading rumours about their relationship. The offender left the residence.

35. When he returned, the offender entered the victim's room and turned on the light. The offender began yelling at her to get out of the bed. The victim asked the offender to let her sleep.

36. The offender held the victim down on the bed, grabbing her arms and her leg. The offender put his knees on her arms and used his hand to push her shorts to the side. The offender digitally penetrated the victim's vagina with his fingers, for about twenty seconds. The victim froze. When the offender removed his fingers, she observed that there was blood on his middle finger, his ring finger and his hand. The offender made a comment to the effect of ‘oh there's blood’.

37. The victim ‘freaked out’ and went to the shower. She observed blood on her underwear, and was not sure where it came from, as she was not sure whether she was menstruating at the time. The victim had a shower.

38. While she was in the shower the offender came into the bathroom. The victim wrapped herself in a towel. The offender tried to pull her out of the bathroom. The victim fought back against the offender because she thought he was trying to push her out of the house.

Count 12: CC2024/6973 - Aggravated Common Assault (FV)

39. In the lounge area of the residence the victim took herself to the floor to try and stop being dragged from the house by the offender. The offender grabbed the victim by the head and pulled it backwards, hitting the back of her head on the ground. The victim was screaming and crying and laid her head on the ground.

40. The offender picked the victim up put her over his shoulder and took her back into her bedroom. The offender told the victim to ‘sleep it off’. The victim took photographs of the blood where it had transferred to the bed.

41. The offender moved the victim's belongings back into her room. The offender told the victim that she was listening to ‘feminists’ and this was responsible for the issues between them.

42. At some stage during this incident, Manon exited the offender's bedroom to see what was happening. The offender yelled at her to go back into the room. Manon came into the bedroom after the offender left and hugged the victim. The offender yelled at Manon to go back to her bedroom.

43. Later the victim disclosed to one of the offender’s former partners that the offender had put his fingers in her vagina and that the offender had punched her in the nose.

Count 13: CC2024/6974 - Aggravated Common Assault (FV)

44. On an unknown date in February 2024, the victim had determined to move out of the offender’s residence. The offender’s children were present at the residence. She sought help from Ms Rowan as she did not feel safe.

45. When Ms Rowan arrived, the offender began to verbally abuse the victim about Ms Rowan’ attendance. The victim told Ms Rowan that the offender was ‘going crazy, so we just have to hurry’ and they attempted to drag some of the victim's belonging out of the house.

46. The offender pulled the victim by her arm, into her bedroom. He grabbed her by the shirt and pushed her backwards into the wall, causing the victim to bang her head. Ms Rowan, hearing some commotion, came into the bedroom and asked what was going on. The victim was sitting on the bed holding her head. The victim recalled the offender saying words to the effect of ‘oh, I didn't push you. Like, it wasn't even that bad’.

47. Ms Rowan went into the kitchen and the victim followed her. The victim heard one of the children ask Ms Rowan why she was calling the police, which angered the offender. The offender began yelling at Ms Rowan to get out of his house. The offender told the victim and Ms Rowan that they would be arrested. Ms Rowan took Jordan and Manon out of the house.

Count 14: CC2024/6975 - Aggravated Common Assault (FV)

48. On an unknown date in January or February 2024, the victim was in the shower when her mother called her. The victim put a towel around herself and went out onto the balcony, closing the door behind her, so that the offender could not hear the conversation. The offender yelled at the victim about being outside in a towel and asked her whether she knew how many men could see her like that. The victim replied that it was normal and that she was covered.

49. The offender then dragged the victim inside, by her arm. The victim tried to placate the offender; however, he continued yelling at her. The offender dragged the victim from the balcony inside the residence by her arm. The offender hit the victim on her head to stop her from struggling to break free and grabbed the back of her head by the hair, pushing her forward while holding onto it. The offender kept hold of her hair and took her into her bedroom, telling the victim to get changed.

50. The offender yelled at the victim about being a slut and that she was half-naked on the balcony. The victim yelled back at the offender about how he had no right to touch her. The offender told the victim to get changed.

Count 15: CC2024/2912 - Aggravated Choke/Suffocate/Strangle (FV)

51. On 29 February 2024, the victim attended the offender's residence in [redacted] Franklin to return her key having successfully moved out of the residence.

52. Once inside the residence, the offender became angry and aggressive towards her. The victim told the offender that she did not want to be in contact with him anymore.

53. The victim left the residence at the same time as the offender in the elevator. The offender went to the carpark in the basement. The offender told the victim that he was going to Belconnen to ‘talk to people’ about rumours that they were in a relationship with each other.

54. The victim went to the light rail station in [redacted]. The victim was going to Ms Rowan's residence. She was waiting for the tram when the offender pulled up across the road and began beeping his horn. The victim went over to where the offender was.

55. The offender told her to get into the car. The victim initially refused, but then agreed, stating that she was not closing the door. She told the offender that she had an appointment. When the victim got into the car, she left the passenger side door open. The offender accelerated away from the light rail station while the door was still open. This was partially captured on CCTV footage from the light-rail station.

56. The offender was speeding while driving away from the light rail station. The victim asked the offender to let her out of the car. The offender was shouting at the victim while he was driving.

57. The victim took out her phone and attempted to call police. The offender grabbed her phone and threw it into the backseat of his car. The victim moved to get into the backseat, by climbing between the two front seats.

58. As she was trying to climb over, the offender grabbed her by the front of her neck with his left hand and applied pressure. The victim could not breathe. The offender was shaking while he had hold of her neck. The offender still had one hand on the steering wheel at this time.

59. The victim got into the backseat and asked the offender to let her out. The victim told the offender that she was going to call the police. She dialled 000 on two occasions but was frightened and did not report what was happening. Call logs confirmed that the victim dialled 000 at 5:01pm (11 seconds long) and 5:02pm (18 seconds long). The victim was not wearing a seat-belt and was sliding around the backseat as the offender was driving.

60. The victim also called her mother. She asked her mother to tell the offender to let her out of the car. The offender did not let her out of the car. Call logs confirmed that the victim called her mother at 4:58pm for a period of 44 seconds and her mother called her at 5:01pm for a period of 48 seconds. Count 16: SCCAN2025/7 - Aggravated Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (FV)

61. The victim tried to open the back doors of the car but they were locked and she could not get out of the vehicle. The victim tried to grab the offender's phone and threatened to throw it out of the window if he did not stop the car. When the victim tried to grab the offender's phone, he pulled at her chest which caused bleeding to that area.

Count 17: CC2024/6979 - Aggravated Common Assault (FV)

62. The victim succeeded in obtaining the offender's phone. The victim opened the window in the front passenger seat by putting her arm through the space between the door and the chair. The offender grabbed the victim's arm with his left arm and told her to let go or he would break her arm. The victim told the offender that she was unable to let go as he was trying to bend her arm backwards.

63. The offender let go of her arm and she pulled her arm back inside the vehicle. The victim then opened the window and tried to climb out. The offender was trying to close the window as she was opening it. The victim put half her body out of the car while it was moving to try and get out of the car

64. The offender stopped the car, and the victim got out of the car and went across the road. At the time, she felt dizzy. The offender began to drive away. He then stopped the vehicle, got out and followed the victim. The victim was physically shaking and the offender told her to ‘stop pretending’.

65. The victim did not know what to do and eventually agreed to get back into the car with the offender. The offender told her that he would take her to her appointment. The offender was trying to hug her and to hold her hand when she got back into the car. The offender drove around with the victim in the car.

66. The offender went back to his residence and drove the car into the basement. The offender kept telling the victim to calm down and to stop ‘faking’. The victim initially refused to go into the residence with the offender but finally did. After some time she left.

Count 18: CC2024/2913 - Forcible Confinement (FV)

67. From the moment the offender drove his vehicle away from the light rail station until he stopped the vehicle and the victim was able to get out of the vehicle; the victim was unlawfully confined by the offender. During this period of driving, the victim asked to be let out of the vehicle repeatedly and for the offender to stop the car. The offender refused to comply with her repeated requests. Victim impact statement

68. The victim in this matter read aloud a victim impact statement at the sentencing proceedings. The statement captured the significant and lasting effect of the offender’s conduct upon numerous aspects of her life. The victim described the many negative emotional, psychological and physical effects that she has experienced because of the offender’s conduct toward her. The victim stated: He was a family friend; someone I thought I could trust. He presented himself as someone who cared about me and wanted to help me through what I had already been through. He made me believe he would not hurt me. He made me believe like he understood my pain. Instead of helping me he used that vulnerability against me. That is one of the hardest things for me to live with. What he did did not just hurt me physically or emotionally in the moment. It affected the way I feel in my own body. It affected the way I feel around men. It affected the way I feel in cars, in Ubers, around family, around friend and even in normal everyday situations where I should feel safe.

69. The victim’s mental health and overall wellbeing have been dramatically and negatively influenced by the violence perpetrated against her by the offender. The victim has struggled to connect with and trust people, even those close to her with whom she has long standing relationships. The offender’s conduct has also affected her family members who have tried to support her.

70. The victim described that the offender made her feel “small, pathetic and ashamed”. Whilst she recognised that any shame for what occurred should fall on the offender, she nonetheless carries the burden of trying to understand why the offender treated her so poorly.

71. The victim powerfully explained that the finalisation of these proceedings does not bring to an end the effects upon her of the offender’s conduct: Even though the court case is ending the consequences of his actions are not over for me. I am the one who had to carry the fear, the depression, the nightmares, shame and damage every day. I am one who had to rebuild my life around something I never asked for and never deserved. I deserve to feel safe again. I deserve to heal without fear. I ask the court to understand that this was not a small moment in my life. It changed me deeply and I am still living with the effects.

72. I am assisted to understand the extent of the harm occasioned to the victim by the offender through the provision of the victim impact statement. The harm caused to her was life changing. The sentence I impose must recognise that harm. Nature and circumstances of the offending

73. Family violence is a circumstance of statutory aggravation for 17 counts. Count 18 occurred in the context of their being a family like relationship between the offender and the victim at the time it occurred.

74. The offending occurred across a 10-week period. There are some common features across all offences. All the conduct occurred in the context of the offender desiring a romantic relationship with the victim which she had made plain to him she did not want. The violence perpetrated by the offender was unpredictable and almost always in response to a perceived slight from the victim or a failure by her to follow a direction or to behave as the offender wished her to behave. I am satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the offender expected that he could instruct the victim and that she would follow his instructions. The offender sought to dominate and control the victim with unpredictable violence and further by manipulating her to believe that she would not be taken seriously if she reported his conduct to authorities.

75. Further, the conduct occurred against the background of the offender’s belief system which included that ‘feminism’ had corrupted the victim’s thoughts and behaviour to such an extent that she behaved inappropriately and without the boundaries that the offender considered necessary. In this way the offender considered the victim responsible for the requirement for him to correct and instruct her. The offender also remonstrated with the victim for bringing his conduct to the attention of others by telling her that this would see her responsible for any restriction that might result on his access to his children.

76. The victim was younger than the offender by just over a decade. The victim considered the offender to be like an ‘uncle’. She trusted that she would be safe living with him and that he did not want a relationship with her. He had promised her as much.

77. I am satisfied that common to all offences was an exploitation by the offender of the victim’s vulnerability which arose because of her insecure housing status and her reliance upon him for accommodation once she had moved into his residence. It is against this background that I am satisfied the offending amounted to a breach of trust.

78. The maximum penalties, as a ‘yardstick’, are an indication of the objective seriousness of the offences. The maximum penalties which apply to the aggravated offences reflect the seriousness of violent conduct committed where there exists a family like relationship. The sexual offences, the choking offence and the unlawful confinement in particular carry substantial periods of imprisonment.

79. I turn to consider the specific, additional features of each count.

Count 1 (aggravated common assault – family violence)

80. The offending was constituted by one strike of sufficient force to cause discomfort and a mark on the victim’s skin which I take into account as reflecting the level of force used by the offender. The offender’s children were present.

Count 2 (aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence)

81. The strike was to an intimate area of the victim’s body and caused her to bruise as well as to feel pain, discomfort and concern for her wellbeing. The prosecution conceded that I could not be satisfied that the bleeding experienced by the victim was as a direct result of the strike. The offender’s children were present when the offence occurred, and the offender’s daughter attempted to comfort the victim.

Count 3 (aggravated intimate observation or capture visual data – family violence) and count 4 (aggravated Act of indecency without consent – family violence)

82. The victim was asleep when the offending occurred and therefore in an acutely vulnerable position. The offender knew the victim could not consent and by his conduct exploited the victim’s vulnerability for his own sexual gratification.

83. A number of images were captured. The conduct which constituted the act of indecency was a grotesque violation of the victim’s privacy and dignity.

84. The offending was calculated and brazen in that the victim could have awoken at any stage so too the offender’s daughter who was sleeping in the bed next to the victim.

Count 5 (aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence)

85. The offence was constituted by a blow to the victim’s eye, a vulnerable area of her face. The blow which I am satisfied would have caused pain and discomfort, resulted in bruising to the victim’s eye. The blow occurred in circumstances where the offender was behaving erratically and the victim was attempting to assist him. The victim was also attempting to protect the welfare of the offender’s children (who were present) by shielding them to the extent that she could from the offender’s unpredictable and erratic behaviour. The incident would have been frightening for the victim.

Count 6 (aggravated common assault – family violence) 7, 8, and 10 (aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence)

86. Counts 6, 7, 8 and 10 were all acts of violence by the offender in an attempt to physically remove the victim from his residence. All the acts involved the offender exerting a level of control over the victim. There was an element of humiliation inherent in the acts where the victim was ‘dragged’ by the offender. The striking of the victim’s head into the wall was an act of gratuitous violence in circumstances where the offender had already successfully asserted his physical dominance over her.

87. Count 6 was constituted by offender dragging the victim across the floor by her leg.

Count 7 (aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence)

88. Following count 6, the offender used a closed fist to punch the victim in the nose, causing it to bleed.

Count 8 (aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence)

89. The offender grabbed the victim’s hair and struck her head against a wall. This caused the victim to feel dizzy and she was unable to move for a period. She described a feeling that she had “blacked out”. She lay on the floor. The offender lifted her head up off the floor occasionally.

Count 10 (aggravated common assault – family violence)

90. The offender dragged the victim across the carpet by her neck and moved her body outside the unit and locked the door. The victim’s phone and cat were still inside the unit. When the offender permitted the victim to return inside the unit she offered to leave. The offender told her that he did not want her to leave. The offender told the victim that women could not be trusted and wanted to ruin his life.

Count 11 (aggravated sexual intercourse without consent – family violence) and count 12 (aggravated common assault – family violence)

91. The offender digitally penetrated the victim without her consent for approximately twenty seconds while holding her down with his body weight on the bed during the course of an argument between them. The victim was actively physically and verbally resisting the offender. I am satisfied that the offender engaged in the act knowing that the victim was not consenting. The conduct was intended to communicate to the victim that the offender’s capacity to control her included a preparedness to interfere with her bodily autonomy in the most intimate way.

92. Count 12 occurred close in time to count 11 when the offender was attempting to control the victim by physically moving her around having pulled her from the bathroom. Count 12 involved the offender striking the victim’s head into the ground. The offender remonstrated with the victim about feminist ideas and her stubbornness. This was intended to apportion blame to the victim for his resort to violence. The offender’s daughter was present when the conduct occurred which exposed her to the victim’s distress because of the offending. The victim was consoled by her following count 12.

Count 13 (aggravated common assault – family violence)

93. This count involved the offender violently pushing the victim against a wall which caused her head to ‘bang’ against it. The offending occurred after the victim had demonstrated to the offender her intention to move and to be assisted by his ex-partner. The offender was undeterred by the presence of his ex-partner and his children in the next room.

Count 14 (aggravated common assault – family violence)

94. The offence involved the offender attempting to physically assert control over the victim in response to conduct which displeased him. The physical contact which constituted the offence was not especially protracted. Nonetheless it was successful in controlling the victim by removing her from the balcony thereby undermining her desire for privacy in her conversation with her mother. I am satisfied the conduct was intended to shame or humiliate the victim.

Count 15 (aggravated act endangering health - family violence), 16 (aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence) and 17 (aggravated common assault – family violence)

95. Each of these counts occurred whilst the victim was unlawfully confined by the offender in his vehicle. The victim made repeated requests for the offender to stop the vehicle and permit her to get out. I am satisfied that the offender knew the victim did not want to be in the vehicle with him. His conduct was driven by a desire to frighten and control the victim. The victim was vulnerable because of the control the offender had over her by virtue of his control of the vehicle. The nature of the vehicle was such that she was unable to unlock the vehicle. I am satisfied that the victim was frightened of the offender’s response if she made contact with police.

96. Count 15 was a choking which occurred when the offender pressed on the victim’s neck with one hand. The victim described the pressure as “really tight” and the offender’s hand as “shaking” when he was choking her. The victim felt swelling in her throat after the event. The act was performed in circumstances where the offender was refusing to accede to the victim’s wish to be able to exit the vehicle the offender was driving. The act was deliberate, intended to cause pain to the victim and I am satisfied was designed to communicate to the victim that she was at the mercy of the offender. The choking was not protracted and did not cause the victim any long-term raspatory issues.

Count 16 (aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence),

97. The offender used force against the victim by pulling at her chest. The contact caused the victim to bleed. This bleeding is the actual bodily harm occasioned by the offender.

Count 17 (aggravated common assault – family violence)

98. This count occurred in quick succession to count 16 and involved the offender grabbing the victim’s arm with some force and bending it back while threatening to break it.

Count 18 (forcible confinement)

99. The victim gave evidence that she repeatedly asked for the offender to pull over and let her out of the vehicle. The offender confined the victim in an effort to control her and force her to go with him. He was undeterred by her pleas and her distress. I am satisfied that the victim was deliberately confined by the offender for at least 10 minutes in circumstances where she was subjected the threats of violence and actual violence. The offender intended that his conduct would frighten the victim in an effort to have her co-operate with him. There was a degree of punishment and humiliation involved in this offence by virtue of the victim repeatedly begging the offender to let her out of the vehicle and his continuing to drive it at high-speed knowing she was desperately wanting to get out and was unable to free herself.

Subjective circumstances

100. A pre-sentence report (PSR) was completed on 30 April 2026.

101. The offender is 34-years old. He migrated to Australia from Syria in 2010. He is a permanent resident. His mother and grandmother remained in Syria and were killed in the war which began in 2011. This is unsurprisingly a source of grief for the offender. He has a brother and sister who live in the Netherlands. Around the time of the offending, the offender had discovered a friend had died in Syria which caused him significant distress.

102. The offender’s father, stepmother and half-sister live in Canberra. The offender’s father remains supportive of him.

103. In 2014, when the offender was employed in the construction industry, he was injured at work. He was unable to work for one year while recovering from his injury. He suffered another injury whilst working in 2016. Since then, he has remained unemployed. He attempted to reskill and complete qualifications in cyber security prior to his remand in custody for these offences.

104. The offender has two children from two separate previous relationships. His six-year-old daughter visits him in custody. The offender did have contact with his son in the community but has not had contact with him since his remand in custody.

105. Consistent with uncontested evidence adduced in the trial there remain two Family Violence Orders (FVO) in place which name the offender as the respondent and his children and former partners as protected persons.

106. During his time in custody, the offender commenced medication which was identified in the PSR for pain and “mental health issues”. Records from Canberra Health Services indicated that the offender had a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressive features. The offender disclosed to the author of the PSR that he is “experiencing stress from his legal matters”.

107. The offender was subject to an assessment in March 2024 and there was no evidence that he was suffering a major mental illness.

Time in custody

108. The offender has been remanded in custody since 1 March 2024. The sentence will be backdated accordingly.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

109. The offender mounted no contest to the case made against him with respect to counts 3, 4 and 5. Counsel for the offender at the outset of the trial informed the jury that the acts relied upon for those counts would not be contested by the offender. I am satisfied that the offender assisted in administration of justice pursuant to s 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 with respect to those counts by: (a) Narrowing the issues at trial. (b) Sparing the jury and victim from viewing graphic, intimate material. (c) Sparing the victim substantial cross examination about counts 3, 4 and 5.

110. I will record further on the effect of that assistance on the sentence I impose. Notwithstanding that assistance, I am not satisfied that the offender’s approach to those counts arose because of any genuine remorse or contrition for the conduct captured by those counts. The offender in his own evidence sought to justify to a degree his offending for counts 3, 4 and 5. This is consistent with the approach attributed to him by the author of the PSR who recorded that the offender “made a number of allegations against the victim and disputed the guilty verdict for some of the offences. He accepted responsibility for some offences although maintained that some charges were unjustified.”

111. The offender has not demonstrated genuine remorse and would appear to have no insight into the gravity and scope of his offending conduct. His approach to counts 4, 5 and 6 was an acceptance of the strength of the case against him with respect to the conduct alleged against him.

112. Whilst in custody the offender has completed a construction industry course as well as training for asbestos and silica awareness. He has held sweeper positions in the custodial environment. The offender has been assessed as suitable for a community service work condition and low-level supervision by the author of the PSR.

113. I have already made observations about the significance of the offender’s attitude toward the victim as a young woman. The offending was borne from an entrenched belief system which saw the offender consider his own needs as superior to the victim’s. This is reflected in the evidence about his repeatedly expressed disdain for ‘feminism’ and its effect on the victim, as well as in the nature of the conduct itself and the circumstances in which it occurred. There was an element of correction, punishment and humiliation in his use of physical force and certainly an element of entitlement in the sexual offences. The offending overall was cruel and at times, brutal.

114. The operation of that belief system can be reasonably inferred from both his former partner’s successfully seeking protection from him by way of family violence order. Added to which is an entry on his criminal history, albeit from some time ago, which involves family violence committed against a domestic partner.

115. The effect of the evidence before me is that I am satisfied that the belief system which underpinned the offending is entrenched and requires challenge for the offender to be able develop some insight into its influence on his conduct toward the victim and on other women with whom he has been in close relationship.

116. I acknowledge that the offender does not present with any major criminogenic risk factor connected to mental ill-health, drug and alcohol use or anti-social associates. He is capable of some kind of employment and has ongoing family support.

117. The offender is not an old man. If he is willing to reflect on his conduct and the drivers of it, he may be able to effect change which would reduce the risk he presents to women with whom he desires or with whom he is in romantic relationship. Unless or until the offender confronts the belief system driving his offending, in my view he will remain at risk of further offending.

118. The extent to which this attitude can be addressed in the custodial environment is unknown to me. The PSR noted that the offender “may benefit from engaging in offence specific interventions and treatment to address both family violence and sexual offending” and that he could be assessed for treatment programs after he was sentenced. Whilst the author of the report considered the offender suitable for a ‘low level of supervision’ it was noted that the offender was not assessed for his risk with respect to sexual offending and that such an assessment could change the ‘supervision level’ required.

119. I acknowledge that the offender has only one entry on his criminal history for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed against a previous partner in 2014.

120. Notwithstanding that he does not have an extensive criminal history, for the reasons I have explained, the offender does not present as a strong prospect of rehabilitation in relation to offences of violence against women with whom he has close connection. That said, this is the first occasion that the offender has been incarcerated. I accept that this is likely to have a significant deterrent effect upon him.

121. The reality of the sentence I will impose upon him is that the Sentence Administration Board will be in a better position to assess the effect of any custodial intervention engaged in by the offender on the extent to which the community requires protection.

Sentencing practice

122. I was taken to several comparable sentencing outcomes for this offence. Of course, regard to sentencing practice promotes consistency in the application of sentencing principle, not mathematical equivalence. The full detail of the table provided by the prosecution is annexed to this judgment (‘Annexure A’).

123. In DPP v Hudson [2023] ACTSC 333, the offender was sentenced for a range of sexual and violent offences over the course of 15 minutes. The facts included a series of non-consensual acts occurred including digital penetration, choking, assaults and property damage. For the act of non-consensual digital penetration the offender was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment. That offender received a total sentence of 4 years and 9 months, non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months for all the offences.

124. In DPP v Ierfone [2025] ACTSC 60, I sentenced an offender to 2 years imprisonment for one count of sexual intercourse without consent and 10 months imprisonment for one count of an act of indecency without consent. The total term was two years and four months, which was suspended after 4 months upon the offender entering a 2-year good behaviour order. This offending occurred on one night, and the offender was found guilty by a jury.

125. In R v NX (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 131, the offender pleaded guilty in the middle of the trial. The sentence was for a series of offences including capture intimate image, acts of indecency, sexual intercourse without consent, multiple assaults causing bodily harm and minor injury, and several incidents of property damage. This offender was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.

126. In R v Fry (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 389, the offender was sentenced for forcible confinement to 1 year and 10 months of imprisonment (reduced from two years and one month of imprisonment for plea of guilty). The facts of this sentence also involved the use of a motor vehicle, and assaults whilst the victim was a passenger of the vehicle. This offender had a limited criminal history.

127. DPP v Shepherd [2026] ACTSC 50 involved an offender sentenced for multiple family‑violence–related offences involving choking, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, threats to kill or cause serious harm, a contravention of a family violence order, and damage or threats to property. For two aggravated choke offences the offender received 20 months imprisonment for each with 17 months concurrency. The total period of imprisonment imposed was 4 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.

128. Some of the comparable outcomes involved offences with lower maximum penalties than those which apply in this case.

Totality

129. The offender must be sentenced for several offences. The offending consisted of eight separate incidents over a period of 10 weeks. Five of the incidents (counts 1 – 2, counts 3 – 4, counts 6 – 10, counts 11 – 12, count 15 – 18) involved multiple offences.

130. There is a need to avoid a perception that the offender has received a ‘discount’ for engaging in numerous criminal acts. That said, a ‘crushing’ outcome which destroys the offender’s hope for reform, given his age and his lack of substantial criminal history, must also be avoided.

131. There must be a degree of cumulation between each incident in recognition of the separate nature of the conduct and the separate harm occasioned to the victim. The act of indecency offence and capture visual data offence are tightly intertwined legally and factually. This warrants substantial concurrency. There is a degree of concurrency warranted as between offences committed close in time during the same incident.

Determination

132. General deterrence, punishment, denunciation and recognition of harm are all compelling sentencing considerations. So too specific deterrence given the duration, scope and escalation of the offending.

133. The community is united in its condemnation of offences which involve family violence and rightly expects the court to sentence family violence offenders accordingly. I have considered s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and the matters to which it dictates regard. Men who deliberately and callously inflict violence upon women in furtherance of outdated ideas about women’s role in society and in relationships should understand that such conduct will be met with severe consequences. That is what the legislature has made plain by virtue of the maximum penalties which apply, consistent with what the community rightly expects.

134. The offending represented a course of conduct which involved very serious acts of violence inflicted by the offender on the victim in effort to control her. The offender was motivated by a desire to coerce and manipulate the victim into a romantic relationship with him. When it became apparent to the offender that the victim remained uninterested in this kind of relationship with him, the offender lashed out to inflict pain and humiliate her. There was no submission made that alternatives to a period of full-time imprisonment ought to be considered. This is offending which undoubtedly warrants severe punishment.

135. The offender’s approach to counts 3, 4 and 5 described above represented a significant degree of assistance in the administration of justice. The approach taken by the offender to those counts meant the victim was spared cross examination with respect to that conduct and significantly, the prosecution was able to rely on heavily redacted versions of the intimate images, a matter I consider to be of real value to the victim and to the jury. Pursuant to s 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act I will reduce the sentence imposed on those counts by 15 per cent having regard to the considerable degree of assistance provided in the administration of justice.

136. The starting point for count 3 aggravated intimate observation or capture visual data is 20 months of imprisonment which will be reduced to 17 months of imprisonment in recognition of the assistance in the administration of justice.

137. The starting point for count 4 aggravated act of indecency without consent is 3 years of imprisonment which will be reduced to 2 years, 6 months and 17 days of imprisonment in recognition of the assistance in the administration of justice.

138. The starting point for count 5 aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm is 2 years of imprisonment which will be reduced to 1 year, 8 months and 12 days of imprisonment in recognition of the assistance in the administration of justice.

139. The sentence imposed will require a non-parole period to be set. This involves the exercise of a wide discretion and a consideration of several factors including the objective seriousness of the offences, the need for punishment and deterrence as well as the prospect of rehabilitation. A non-parole period is the minimum period that justice requires the offender serve in a full-time custodial environment. The conclusion I have drawn with respect to the offender’s entrenched belief system as a driver of the offending and my hesitation about his capacity for rehabilitation are reasons to consider a lengthy period of supervision in the community as in the offender’s interest and the community’s interest. I will set a non-parole period accordingly.

Orders

140. The orders of the Court are: (a) On the offence of aggravated common assault (CC2024/6962), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment to start on 1 March 2024 and end on 31 May 2024. (b) On the offence of aggravated as sault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/6963), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment to start on 1 April 2024 and end on 30 September 2025. (c) On the offence of aggravated intimate observation or capture visual data (CC2024/6964), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 17 months of imprisonment to start on 1 July 2025 and end on 30 November 2026. (d) On the offence of aggravated act of indecency without consent (CC2024/6965), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 6 months and 17 days of imprisonment to start 13 December 2024 and end on 29 June 2027. (e) On the offence of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/8512), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 8 months and 12 days of imprisonment to start on 17 May 2026 and end on 28 January 2028. (f) On the offence of aggravated common assault (CC2024/6968), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 5 months of imprisonment to start on 29 May 2027 and end 28 October 2027. (g) On the offence of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/6966), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment to start on 29 May 2027 and end on 28 November 2028 (h) On the offence of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/6967), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment to start on 28 September 2027 end on 27 March 2029 (i) On the offence of aggravated common assault (CC2024/6969) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment to start on 28 September 2028 and end on 27 May 2029. (j) On the offence of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (CC2024/6972), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment to start on 28 December 2028 and end on 27 December 2032. (k) On the offence of aggravated common assault (CC2024/6973) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment to start on 30 July 2032 and end on 29 March 2033. (l) On the offence of aggravated common assault (CC2024/6974) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment to start on 30 November 2032 and end on 29 July 2033 (m) On the offence of aggravated common assault (CC2024/6975) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment to start on 30 April 2033 and end on 29 July 2033. (n) On the offence of aggravated act endangering health (CC2024/2912) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment to start on 30 January 2032 and end on 29 January 2035. (o) On the offence of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (SCCAN2025/7) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment to start on 30 March 2034 and end on 29 January 2035. (p) On the offence of aggravated common assault (CC2024/6979) the offender is convicted and sentenced to sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment to start on 30 January 2036 and end on 29 May 2036. (q) On the offence of forcible confinement (CC2024/2913) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment to start on 30 May 2033 and end on 29 May 2036. (r) The total period of imprisonment is 12 years, 2 months and 29 days of imprisonment. The non-parole period will start on 1 March 2024 and end on 1 September 2031.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and forty [140] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor. Associate: O Williams Date: 4 June 2026 Annexure A

Case Summary of Facts Subjective Features Outcome

Sexual offences

DPP v RR [2024] Charges Plea of guilty after criminal case 2 years, 4 months and 27 days of ACTSC 279 1 x Aggravated act of indecency without consent (family violence). conferencing – 15% reduction. imprisonment, suspended after 24 days on entering into 16 month GBO. Taylor J Facts Limited criminal history consisting On the evening of 31 October 2022, the victim asked her ex-husband (the offender) to come of a charge of property damage and and stay at her house to help look after their three children as she was unwell. A few hours some driving offences. after going to bed and falling asleep, the victim awoke to the offender rubbing his penis between her legs, with a hand on her breast under her night shirt. The victim could feel the offender’s penis, which was erect, moving back and forth on her genital area, her buttocks and between her legs near to her vagina. The offender ejaculated then rolled away. Objective Seriousness At [15]-[20] HH stated the following: “The conduct in this instance involved the offender rubbing his penis on the victim’s buttocks, vagina and between her legs when she was not wearing any underwear. The offender repeatedly thrust his penis between the victim’s legs, touching her genitals. The conducted involved the offender’s naked genitals touching the victim’s naked genitals and the offender continued until he ejaculated. The victim was in her home, a place she was entitled to feel safe and secure.” “The offender was clearly motivated only by his own sexual gratification, making no real attempt to gauge the victim’s willingness to participate. It was conduct borne of an entitlement to pursue his own gratification with little regard for the victim’s autonomy.” “I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that when the offending commenced the offender knew the victim was asleep and that she was not consenting… The offender made no genuine attempt to ascertain that the contact he was making with her body was with the victim’s consent. The victim did not say or do anything that communicated her free and voluntary consent.” R v NX (No 2) Charges Plea of guilty after victim had given 1 x Capturing visual data in circumstances [2019] ACTSC 1 x Capturing visual data in circumstances where the capture is an invasion of privacy and evidence and was cross-examined – where the capture is an invasion of 131 indecent 5% reduction. privacy and indecent: 3 months 24 days’ 1 x Sexual assault in the third degree. imprisonment (reduced from 4 months Mossop J 1 x Sexual intercourse without consent. Extensive criminal history including for plea of guilty). 3 x Assault occasioning actual bodily harm sentences of imprisonment. 2 x Common assault Total period of imprisonment imposed: 4 years 8 months, with a non-parole period 3 x Damage of 3 years. Facts There were multiple offences, including that the offender held a knife to the victim’s throat and directed her to “suck [his] dick”. The victim complied, performing oral sex on the offender, which he filmed on his mobile phone. Objective Seriousness At [19] HH stated the following: “The objective seriousness is significantly influenced by the nature of the activity which is being filmed. In the present case, the activity was oral sex. There is no clear evidence as to the purpose for which it was captured, although the offender told the author of the pre-sentence report that it was for personal use. The offence in the present case is in the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.” DPP v Hudson Charges Convicted after a trial by jury. Sexual intercourse without consent [2023] ACTSC 3 x Act of indecency without consent. (digital penetration): 18 months 333 1 x Sexual assault in the third degree. Criminal history containing driving imprisonment. 3 x Sexual intercourse without consent (1 digital penetration). offences, common assault, and Berman AJ 1 x Attempted sexual intercourse without consent. destroy/damage property offences, Total term of imprisonment: 4 years 1 x Choke/suffocate/strangle. but no prior sexual offending. and 9 months, non-parole period of 2 1 x Property damage. years and 6 months. Facts The offender attended a brothel and initially engaged in consensual sexual activity with the victim. He then engaged in a “degrading series of assaults” over the course of 15 minutes, which included using a number of his fingers to penetrate the victim’s vagina roughly while holding her down. She could feel his nails scratching her and when later examined by a doctor, a small laceration was found. Objective Seriousness In relation to this offence, HH stated at [50] that this “… was one of rough and forceful digital penetration of the victim’s vagina. The force used was such that the victim’s genitals were injured. As I mentioned above a small laceration was found by the doctor who examined her after all this was over. The force used and the injury which resulted, increase the objective seriousness of this offence.” DPP v Ali (No 4) 2 x Act of indecency. Convicted after a trial by jury. 2 x Act of indecency: 2 months [2020] ACTSC 1 x Sexual intercourse without consent. imprisonment for each (concurrent). 350 Limited criminal history (2 x minor Facts traffic offences) Sexual intercourse without consent: 2 Mossop J The offender and the victim were work colleagues who ran into one another on a night out in years imprisonment. the city in October 2016. The victim had planned in advance to stay at a friend’s house, and the offender asked if he could come with them. The victim’s friend said he could stay on the couch. The victim went to sleep in a spare room. She later awoke to the offender lying on top of her and kissing her. He then placed his hand under her shirt and squeezed her left breast. The victim said “no” and pushed the offender’s hand away. The offender then placed a hand down the victim’s pants, underneath her underwear, and inserted his fingers into the victim’s vagina. The victim again said “no” and pushed the offender’s hand away. Shortly after, while the victim was on the phone to her friend, the offender began trying to pull down her pants. Objective Seriousness At [22] HH stated the following: “Both acts of indecency are also below the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence. The squeezing of the breast is the physically more serious as it involved skin on skin contact with the victim’s breast, however the attempts to pull the victim’s pants down occurred after the incident of digital penetration in circumstances where the lack of consent must have been very clearly established. Because of that aspect, I treat them as of the same objective seriousness.” DPP v Ierfone Charges Convicted after a trial by jury. Sexual intercourse without consent: 2 [2025] ACTSC 60 1 x Act of indecency without consent. years imprisonment. 1 x Sexual intercourse without consent. No criminal history. Taylor J Act of indecency without consent: 10 Facts months imprisonment. The offender and victim were colleagues who both attended a work Christmas party. The offender touched the victim’s breasts which was captured on CCTV. The victim offered to drive Total term of imprisonment: two the offender home in her vehicle. The offender asked to go home with the victim and she years and four months, suspended declined. The offender digitally penetrated the victim’s vagina over her stockings in her car. after 4 months on entering into 2 year GBO. Violent offences

DPP v Ziebell Charges Plea of guilty – 30% reduction (25% Forcible confinement (joint [2025] ACTSC 1 x Reckless inflict GBH (joint commission). for early plea, 5% for giving commission): 2 years, 9 months and 18 471 1 x Forcible confinement (joint commission). evidence against co-accused). days imprisonment (reduced from 4 1 x Reckless threat to inflict GBH (joint commission). years for plea of guilty & giving Taylor J 1 x Choke/suffocate/strangle (joint commission). Extensive criminal history with evidence against co-accused). 1 x Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (joint commission). convictions for like offending. Total period of imprisonment: 6 years and Facts 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years, 10 months and 25 days. On the evening of 10 December 2023, the victim left her residence with the offender and a co-offender on the understanding that they were going to McDonald’s. They got into the offender’s vehicle, where the co-accused was seated in the back seat. The offender drove around for approximately two hours during which time the three co-accused demanded the victim give them money for drugs, struck her with a metal bat causing a tooth evulsion and laceration to her face, choked her, punched her, and threatened to cut her up with an electric saw that was inside the vehicle. The victim ultimately escaped and sought assistance. Objective Seriousness In relation to the forcible confinement, at [50]-[52] HH stated that: “The offender had a key role in this offence as the driver of the vehicle within which the victim was confined and accordingly bears a high degree of responsibility for the commission of this offence. The offender was entirely in control of the vehicle and consequently, the victim’s position within it. The victim was confined for a protracted period. The offence was committed in furtherance of other offences and included threats of violence and the infliction of actual violence. The victim would have experienced significant fear given the offending was in company, weapons were present, and the victim was significantly outnumbered which undoubtedly contributed to her fear and sense of helplessness… This was a very serious example of the offence.” DPP v Shepherd Charges Plea of guilty after preparation of 2 x Aggravated choke/suffocate/strangle: [2026] ACTSC 50 2 x Aggravated choke/suffocate/strangle (family violence). full brief – 15% reduction. 20 months imprisonment for each with 17 1 x Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. months concurrency. Burns AJ 1 x Aggravated threat to kill (family violence). Significant criminal history, 1 x Use carriage service to make a threat to kill. Total period of imprisonment imposed: particularly in relation to family 1 x Threaten to inflict GBH. 4 years 7 months with a non-parole violence offending, assaulting, and 1 x Contravene FVO. period of 2 years and 4 months. 1 x Aggravated property damage (family violence). contravening FVOs. 1 x Threatening to cause property damage. Facts Over a few days the offender engaged in a protracted series of assaults on the victim (his then partner) while she was driving him to work. During a course of conduct that encompassed a headbutt to the victim’s forehead and threats to kill her, the offender choked the victim twice: the first time by placing her in a headlock, and the second time by squeezing his hands around her throat while she was calling for help and waving in an attempt to attract attention. Objective Seriousness At [7] and [8] HH stated the following in relation to the choking offences: “The specific duration of this first incident of choking is not known, although appears to be more than 30 seconds, and your grip was described as “tight”… This second choking occurred in the context of a protracted episode of abusive conduct employed to threaten, intimidate and control the victim.” R v Fry (No 2) Charges Plea of guilty – 3 month reduction. Forcible confinement: 1 year and 10 [2022] ACTSC 1 x Forcible confinement. months imprisonment (reduced from 389 1 x Dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. Limited criminal history. two years and one month 1 x Possession of a drug of dependence. imprisonment for plea of guilty). Refshauge AJ 1 x Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Total period of imprisonment: two years Facts and eight months (non-parole period of 16 months). On 3 May 2020, the offender engaged in an altercation with the victim (his partner). It resulted in him yelling at her to get in their car, which she did, and driving away, during which time he punched her in the head several times. He drove out towards Sutton in New South Wales including, at one time, in a terrifying way. He smashed her mobile phone and punched her, again, in the head, continuing to drive in a dangerous way. He refused to let her out of the car. Finally, she persuaded him that they could stay in a motel and she agreed to arrange the accommodation, using this as an opportunity to leave. Objective Seriousness At [35]-[38] HH stated: “While this is not a very lengthy period… nor was it a short period, especially compared to some (for example, 20 minutes in R v Ndlovu [2017] ACTSC 244, R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 317 and R v Catanzariti [2014] ACTSC 333). There is no evidence that the enterprise was planned or premeditated. There was no physical violence that forced the victim into the car initially, but, when she did, Mr Fry became violent, was physically abusive on a large number of occasions during the period, and was quite restrictive... It is difficult to see any purpose for the confinement, such as to coerce the victim to do or refrain from doing anything, though there seems to be an element of punishment or controlling behaviour. There was significant violence during the confinement, which resulted in police and paramedics considering that she should be taken to hospital, though she was not admitted for a long period. The victim did say that she felt significant pain from where Mr Fry hit her arms and the photographs of her arm, hand and face show obvious and extensive bruising, which was noticed clearly by the treating medical practitioner at the Canberra Hospital, though there was no fracture.” R v Cowling Charges Plea of guilty – 15% reduction. Unlawful confinement: 1 year and 8 [2019] ATCSC 1 x Unlawful confinement. months of imprisonment to be served by way of intensive corrections order. 138 1 x Common assault. Limited criminal history. 1 x Choke/suffocate/strangle. Loukas-Karlsson J Facts On 1 November 2016, the offender was driving himself and the victim home. Having stopped at a petrol station, and when the victim attempted to exit the vehicle, the offender pulled her back into the seat and told her, “you’re not going fucken anywhere”. While driving, the offender maintained his hold on her arm and pulled her towards his body. Over the following period of intermittent driving and stopping, the offender pulled her hair, held her head in his lap, pinched her shoulder and neck and punched her in the face several times. The victim verbally and physically resisted the offender, asked to leave the vehicle, became fearful and cried. The offender refused the victim’s requests to let her leave the vehicle. Following the punches to the face, she reported being in “in a lot of pain”, bloodied, dazed, and confused. She was unable to clean her face or move from the car and vomited multiple times. R v Charges Plea of guilty on day 1 of the trial – Forcible confinement: 18 months Klickovic [2018] 1 x Forcible confinement. 10% reduction. imprisonment, suspended after 20 days upon entering into an undertaking to be of ACTSC 141 1 x Common assault. good behaviour for 3 years. Limited criminal history involving Mossop J Facts minor traffic offences. On the night of 10 January 2017, the offender attended the victim’s (his on-again/off-again partner) residence with two teenagers, slapped her across the face several times, and told her Uniquely compelling subjective they were going for a drive. The victim reluctantly agreed because she was worried that if she circumstances including impact of refused, she would continue to be assaulted. Subsequently, the offender pushed the victim, a sentence of full-time grabbed her around the shoulders, and walked her to the car. The victim was put into the front imprisonment upon the family of passenger’s seat, the two teenagers were in the back, and the offender got into the driver’s the offender, otherwise good seat. The offender then drove a short distance, while the car was moving the victim opened character, and low risk of general her door and jumped out of the car. She ran down the street screaming for help and the reoffending. offender stopped the car, got out and chased after her. The victim fell over about 20-30m away from where the car stopped, and the offender caught up with her, picked her up by the hair, and forced her into the back passenger seat, turning on the child lock of the rear door. One of the teenagers then drove the car to a remote location and the restrained the victim by keeping her wedged in the backseat between him and the child seat as well as confiscating her phone. Ultimately the offender drove the victim back to her home. Objective Seriousness At [46]-[47] HH stated: “… it is clear from the agreed Statement of Facts that the victim was in fear for her life… it is clear that the offender used his greater physical strength to subdue and control the victim. The victim suffered injuries to her legs and a graze to a right arm” and characterised the offence as “just below the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.” HH also noted at [48] that “These offences occurred within a domestic violence context. They are by no means stereotypical domestic violence offences, but they do involve the use of physical strength to control a domestic partner.” DPP v Clifford Charges Plea of guilty – 25% reduction. 3 x Aggravated choke, suffocate or [2025] ACTSC 3 x Aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle. strangle: 1 year, 10 months and 15 days 307 2 x Aggravated common assault. (reduced from 2 years and 6 months for Extensive criminal history. 1 x Aggravated attempt to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm. plea of guilty); Baker J 2 years and 3 months (reduced from 3 Facts years for plea of guilty); and, Over the course of approximately 4 hours on 28 October 2024, the offender engaged in a 1 year and 6 months (reduced from 2 years course of conduct against the victim at her home which included him shoving her and causing for plea of guilty) (some concurrency). her to fall off her bed and strike her chin on a bedside table, pulling her off the ground by her hair and punching her in the ribs, placing her in a headlock for 10 seconds which caused her to 2 x Aggravated common assault: 9 months be unable to breathe, using both hands to apply pressure around her neck and lift her, imprisonment for each (7 months attempting to hit the victim’s toes with a sledgehammer, threatening to bite her nose off and concurrent, both reduced from 1 year for biting her forehead, and placing his knee on the victim’s neck for 10 seconds. plea of guilty). Objective Seriousness At [24] HH stated that both aggravated common assault charges “are rolled up charges, which Total period of imprisonment imposed: 4 incorporate a number of individual assaults.. the criminality encompassed by a rolled up years (2 years and 6 months non parole). charge is greater than that of a single common assault: R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 at [164].” DPP v Williams Charges Plea of guilty – 20% reduction. Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle so as [2024] ACTSC 1 x Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle so as to render the other person insensible or to render the other person insensible or 303 unconscious. unconscious: 2 years, 9 months and 18 The offender had a dated criminal 1 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. days imprisonment (reduced from 3 years history with convictions for family Christensen AJ 1 x Aggravated common assault. and 6 months for plea of guilty). violence offending. 1 x Contravene FVO.Facts In the early hours of 15 June 2023, the offender woke the victim up from her sleep to Aggravated assault occasioning actual complain about the temperature of the apartment heater. He became shouting at her and bodily harm: 1 year, 2 month sand 12 days calling her names. The victim left the room to give him space. She fed her cat and was sitting imprisonment (reduced from 1 year and 6 on the floor. The offender came out and began to follow her around, and became ‘rough’ with months for plea of guilty). her. He pushed her into a wall which the victim hit head first, causing swelling and tenderness to her forehead and cheek. She asked to be left alone, but the offender would not leave her Aggravated common assault: 9 months and alone and continued to shout at her. He then sat on the victim whilst her face was pushed into 18 days imprisonment (reduced from 1 the floor, causing her to lose consciousness. After regaining consciousness, the victim tried to year for plea of guilty). crawl away, and the offender shoved her as well as shaking her. At one stage the victim managed to get to the front door of the apartment and open it, but the offender grabbed her Contravene FVO: 1 year, 7 months and 6 and pulled her back inside. days imprisonment (reduced from 2 years for plea of guilty). Objective Seriousness At [27] HH stated that this was an act “committed amongst persistent aggression by Mr Total period of imprisonment imposed: Williams, during which the victim repeatedly asked and sought to leave or seek assistance, and 4 years and 23 days (2 years, 5 months was prevented from doing so. The victim also experienced the further degradation of verbal and 9 days non parole). aggression during the incident, and physical assaults to a vulnerable part of the body” DPP v Kelly Charges Plea of guilty – 20% reduction. Aggravated assault occasioning actual [2025] ACTSC 1 x Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle. bodily harm: 2 years, 4 months and 23 days 465 1 x Aggravated intentional threat to kill. imprisonment, partly suspended on The offender had an extensive 1 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. entering into a GBO. criminal history with a single Taylor J conviction for family violence Facts Total period of imprisonment imposed: 4 related offending. On the evening of 26 June 2024, the offender became involved in a verbal altercation with his years and 6 months, partly suspended on partner as she wished to go to hospital due to being unable to find her insulin, and the entering into a GBO. offender was verbally and physically preventing her from doing so (including hindering her attempts to communicate with emergency services). When the victim tried to leave by running towards the gates, the offender ran after her, grabbed her by the shoulders, punched her in the face with a closed fist on the left side of her face. When the victim attempted to leave once more, he tackled her to the round and caused her to scrape her knees against the pavement. Objective Seriousness At [69]-[]70] HH stated the following: “The victim was unwell at the time of the offending; a matter which was known to the offender… the offender punched the victim in the face, refused her entry back into the house and tackled her to the ground. The victim suffered bruising and six abrasions ranging between 10mm – 60mm in size on her knees and shins, as well as an abrasion on the palm of her right hand. The conduct was intentional. I accept that the injuries suffered by the victim were not especially serious. The conduct revealed a desire by the offender to control and isolate the victim through fear, physical power and intimidation when she was acutely vulnerable. Notwithstanding the minor nature of the injuries, it is properly characterised as a serious example of the offence.” DPP v Brown Charges Convicted after a trial by jury. 2 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual [2025] ACTSC 2 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. bodily harm: 6 months imprisonment for 428 1 x Choking. each, concurrent. Kelly AJ Facts After the victim arrived home one night, the offender (her partner) told her to leave and slapped her with an open hand, causing a cut to the inside of her lip. When she went into the bathroom to check her lip, he pulled her from the bathroom by her hair forcibly enough for her to sustain injury to her left ear which kept bleeding. He then choked the victim to the point where she briefly became unconscious. DPP v Jewell Charges Plea of guilty – 20-25% reduction. 1 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual [2025] ACTSC 4 x Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle. bodily harm: 3 months imprisonment. 367 3 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Limited criminal history, with two 1 x Aggravated reckless threat to kill. 1 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual previous convictions for Mossop J 1 x Contravene FVO. bodily harm: 16 months imprisonment. contravening a protection or family 1 x Attempt contravene FVO. violence order, and a conviction for 1 x Traffic in trafficable quantity of cannabis. 1 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual common assault. bodily harm: 16 months imprisonment. Facts On 16 July 2024, the offender became angry with the victim (his partner) as he blamed her for Head sentence (11 counts): 5 years, 3 him missing a dental appointment. He slapped the victim on both sides of her head and face, months. NPP 3 years. causing pain and a black eye. The 7-year-old child of the offender and victim was in the residence at the time of the incident, it was not known whether he was aware of the assault. The following day, the offender asked the victim to stay home due to her black eye. On 26 July 2024, the offender became angry with the victim as he blamed her for him missing a flight. He hit her across the face multiple times with open hands. The victim repeatedly asked the offender to stop, but he did not listen. He then pinned her against the bed and slapped her across the face. The victim sustained chips to two of her bottom teeth, a bloody nose, bruises around her right eye, swelling to both ears and swelling and bruises on both hands. On 27 July 2024 the offender attended the victim’s house, in contravention of an FVO served the previous evening. He went into the main bedroom where the victim was. He started hitting the victim again while screaming at her, slapping her in the face numerous times and using his fists to punch her face and head. Objective Seriousness At [23] HH stated the following in relation to the 16 July offending: “The offending involves striking the victim’s head in her home. It was sufficient to cause a black eye. It is a mid range offence. The family violence context (which makes the offence a statutorily aggravated one) is emphasised by the victim-blaming nature of the conduct and the fact that the offender tried to keep his conduct hidden by asking the victim to stay home the next day.” At [43] HH stated the following in relation to the 26 July offending: “It is significant that [the offending] occurred in the home of the victim when a child was in the house and conscious of what was going on… [the offending], due to the number of different assaults and the range of injuries, is at the upper end of the mid range.” DPP v Whitall Charges Plea of guilty – 15-20% reduction. Aggravated assault occasioning actual [2025] ACTSC 1 x Forcible confinement. bodily harm: 19 months imprisonment 111 1 x Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle. (reduced from 24 months for plea of Extensive criminal history, including 1 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. guilty). family violence offending. Christensen AJ 1 x Aggravated property damage. 1 x Aggravated threat to kill. Total period of imprisonment: Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in respect of the Facts aggravated choke, threat to kill, and In the evening of 20 September 2023, the offender began arguing with the victim (his then AOABH, for which the offender was partner), accusing her of being unfaithful. The offender grabbed the victim by the throat and sentenced for a total term of 4 years squeezed, causing the victim to feel dizzy and have difficulty breathing. He then punched her imprisonment. twice to the left side of her head. The victim kicked the offender to get him away from her. He then punched her between two and four times and four times to the nose, causing her nose to bleed on the pillow. The victim later developed significant swelling on the left side of her face as a result of the two punches to the side of her head. Objective Seriousness: At [38] HH stated the following: “The offending was very serious. It was prolonged conduct that occurred in the context of a protracted verbal argument and aggression directed at the victim, which likely exacerbated the harm caused to her. She was subjected to relentless and persistent family violence, by an offender who displayed concerning conduct with features of control, coercion, and intimidation.” At [62] HH stated the following: “The facts provide that this was serious ongoing conduct involving multiple applications of force, including to a vulnerable part of the body. The victim was punched repeatedly, and she was bitten. During one of the acts of assault, she was held by her arms. The assaults occurred in a context of the other ongoing family violence conduct, and with threats and degrading words directed at the victim.” DPP v Ledbrook- Charges Plea of guilty – 25% reduction. Aggravated assault occasioning actual Miller [2024] 1 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. bodily harm: 9 months imprisonment ACTSC 254 1 x Aggravated property damage. (reduced from 12 months for plea of The offender had a criminal history guilty), wholly suspended with immediate of family violence, traffic and drug Baker J Facts effect on entering into a GBO. offences in both the ACT and NSW. On 9 October 2022, the offender asked his partner for her phone password, which she refused. The victim swung her hand at the offender, who dodged, then slapped the victim in the face. She fell to the ground and he slapped her twice to the face with an open hand, causing a left eye hematoma, a right temple abrasion, and mild swelling to her right cheek. He then pushed her onto the bed and straddled her, placing his weight upon her chest. Objective Seriousness At [34] HH stated the following: “… the offender struck the victim with an open hand, rather than a fist, however, the victim’s injuries indicate that the force used was not insignificant, and the strikes were made to the victim’s head, a vulnerable part of her body.” DPP v Ryan (No Charges Plea of guilty – 20% reduction. Aggravated choke render 2) [2024] ACTSC 1 x Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle render unconscious/insensible. unconscious/insensible: 36 months 94 1 x Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. imprisonment (reduced from 45 months). The offender had a criminal history including offences of violence and Christensen AJ Facts Aggravated assault occasioning actual family violence. During an argument the offender pushed the victim against the wall, forcefully placing his bodily harm: 18 months imprisonment hand on her neck, causing her difficulty breathing. The pressure to the neck caused redness, (reduced from 22 months for plea of minor abrasions and bruising. He then struck her in the face with a closed fist which caused guilty). the victim to feel “everything spinning”. She lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she was on her back. The offender jumped on her and punched her with a Head sentence: 4 years 3 months closed fist in her head and face. The force of these punches was 8 out of 10. The victim could imprisonment, NPP 28 months. feel blood coming from her face as a result of the punches. Objective Seriousness At [19] HH stated the following: “The act of assault involved multiple forceful applications of force to a vulnerable part of the body. Ms Brown was particularly vulnerable, having been attacked unexpectedly, and while she was on the floor with Mr Ryan on top of her. The assault resulted in not insignificant bodily harm that involved bleeding and a scar, and, as shown in the photographs, multiple areas to the head that sustained a level of harm.”