DPP v Jewell [2025] ACTSC 367

1. The offender, Luca Jewell, a 31-year-old man, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

Count Offence Offence Date 1 CAN 9193/2024: aggravated choke, suffocate or 5-23 July 2024 strangle (family violence), contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 2 CAN 9179/2024: aggravated choke, suffocate or 8-19 July 2024 strangle (family violence), contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 3 CAN 9180/2024: aggravated assault occasioning actual 16 July 2024 bodily harm (family violence), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 4 CAN 9203/2024: aggravated choke, suffocate or 26 July 2024 strangle (family violence), contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 5 CAN 9207/2024: aggravated assault occasioning actual 26 July 2024 bodily harm (family violence), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 6 CAN 9208/2024: aggravated reckless threat to kill 26 July 2024 (family violence), contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act 7 CAN 9227/2024: aggravated choke, suffocate or 27 July 2024 strangle (family violence), contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 8 CAN 7670/2024: contravene family violence order, 27 July 2024 contrary to s 43(2) of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) 9 CAN 7671/2024: aggravated assault occasioning actual 27 July 2024 bodily harm (family violence), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 10 CAN 8999/2024: attempt to contravene family violence 1-5 August 2024 order, contrary to s 43(2) of the Family Violence Act, by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) 11 CAN 9189/2024: traffic in trafficable quantity of 30 July 2024 cannabis, contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code

2. The offender asks for the following offences to be taken into account pursuant to Pt 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) in relation to CAN 9189/2024, the cannabis trafficking offence:

Count Offence Offence Date

12 CAN 9190/2024: possess a prohibited weapon, contrary 30 July 2024 to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) 13 CAN 9191/2024: possess proceeds of crime, contrary 30 July 2024 to s 114C of the Crimes Act 14 CAN 3287/2025: possess a product of a controlled 30 July 2024 plant and equipment to cultivate a controlled plant, contrary to s 621 of the Criminal Code

3. In these reasons, for ease and brevity of reference, I will refer to the various offences by the count numbers which I have given them above.

Facts and objective seriousness

4. The facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced are agreed and are set out in a Statement of Facts, which was included in the prosecution tender bundle. The facts may be summarised as follows. Because of the number of offences, it is convenient to briefly indicate my assessment of the objective seriousness of each offence when it is described.

Background

5. The offender and the victim of the offending had been intimate partners on and off since approximately 2015. The offender and victim have a son, “AB”. At the beginning of July 2024, AB was 7 years old, and the victim was approximately 35 weeks pregnant with another child.

6. At that time, the offender, the victim and AB resided together at an address in Coombs, in the ACT (the Coombs residence).

Count 1 — Aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle

7. On a date between 5 July 2024 and 23 July 2024, AB was sitting on the couch in the lounge room of the Coombs residence playing a video game while wearing a gaming headset.

8. The offender told AB that his headset was too loud. AB did not hear the offender, which made the offender angry.

9. The offender grabbed AB by the shirt and pushed him backwards into the couch. As he did this, the offender applied pressure to AB’s neck. AB felt pain and was very scared. The victim told the offender to stop, and he did.

10. This is within the scope of s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act because of the extended definitions contained in s 27. The agreed facts do not describe the manner in which pressure was applied to AB’s neck. It is significant that, although the amount of pressure is not described, it is agreed that AB felt pain and was scared as a result. The conduct was directed to a child and occurred in the child’s own home. It is an offence at the low to mid range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Count 2 — Aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle

11. On another occasion, between 8 July 2024 and 19 July 2024, the victim was asleep in the main bedroom at the Coombs residence.

12. At some point in the early hours of the morning, the offender came into the room and woke the victim up. The offender told the victim he had taken MDMA and acid and wanted her to look after him. The victim went downstairs to get water and a bong for the offender.

13. The victim returned to the bedroom and was sitting on the bed with her head propped up against the pillows. The victim said something like, “Can you not be an arse in the morning.” The offender became upset and said, “You have made me a [sic] have a bad trip”. The offender then grabbed the victim by the throat with his right hand and held her against the bed for approximately 10 seconds before releasing her. This is count 2.

14. When the offender’s hand was pressed against the victim’s throat, she was in pain and could not breathe. However, the victim was not out of breath, and she did not lose consciousness, as the incident did not last long.

15. After the offender released the victim, he got up and started yelling, “I could have killed you. I am on drugs”. The victim was scared and apologised in an attempt to calm the offender down.

16. AB was asleep in his bedroom at the time of this incident.

17. This offending occurred in the victim’s home after she had assisted the offender. The description indicates that it was brief, but sufficient to stop the victim breathing while it occurred. However, it did not leave her out of breath. It was not of the most serious type of offending that fits within s 28. I assess it as at the bottom end of the medium range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Count 3 — Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm

18. On 16 July 2024, the offender was supposed to go to the dentist at about midday but could not decide if he wanted to go. The victim stopped trying to get him to go. The offender then became angry because he had missed the appointment.

19. The victim and the offender were in the hallway of the Coombs residence when the offender started slapping the victim on both sides of her head and face.

20. The slaps caused the victim pain and a black eye on the right side. The victim took a photo of the black eye.

21. AB was in his bedroom at the time of this incident; however, the victim had closed AB’s bedroom door before the assault occurred. The agreed facts do not directly or indirectly indicate whether he was aware of the assault.

22. The following day, the offender asked the victim to stay home due to her black eye. The victim was scared and stayed home.

23. 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.

Count 4 — Aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle (a rolled-up charge) Count 5 — Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (a rolled-up charge) Count 6 — Aggravated threat to kill

24. On 26 July 2024, when the victim was approximately 38 weeks pregnant, the offender was due to fly to Bali for a holiday. (The agreed facts did not contain any explanation as to why the offender would be flying to Bali for a holiday when his partner was 38 weeks pregnant with their child.) At about 4:30am that day, the offender woke up and was agitated because he thought he had missed his flight, which was not until 8:30am. The offender was angry at the victim for not helping him get ready. The victim told him, “Your bag is packed and all I have to do is drive you to the airport.”

25. When the victim got out of bed, the offender grabbed the front of her neck and then very quickly released her, which caused her pain and shock, and caused her to start crying. This is part of count 4.

26. The offender took a Xanax and smoked cannabis to calm down, then went back to sleep until around 8am. When the offender woke up again, he was acting very aggressively and blamed the victim for causing him to miss his flight. The offender hit the victim across the face multiple times with open hands. The victim could not keep count of the hits as there were so many. This is part of count 5. The victim tried to protect herself by dropping to the ground and covering her head. She repeatedly asked the offender to stop, but he was not listening.

27. The offender asked the victim to call the airport to try to organise another flight. The victim obeyed and hoped that calling someone may help de-escalate the situation. The victim rang the airport and pleaded with the call taker to help with arranging a new flight. The call taker told the victim she would need to call the airline. The offender continued to yell at the victim while she was on the phone, and he eventually told her to hang up.

28. At about 10:20am, the call taker called police and reported that she could hear a male in the background of the call with the victim and he was yelling and abusing the victim, who had sounded terrified.

29. After the victim got off the phone to the airport, the offender pinned her against the bed and slapped her across the face. This is part of count 5. He then grabbed a pillow and held it over the victim’s head, which caused her difficulty breathing. This is part of count 4, within the definition of “suffocate”. While he was pushing down on the pillow over her face, he stated that he would kill her. This is count 6. The victim was able to move her hand under the pillow to create an opening through which she could breathe.

30. While this was happening, AB had woken up. AB could hear the offender yelling and yelled out from his bedroom for the offender to stop hurting his mother. The offender told AB to shut up and then got up and shut AB’s bedroom door, before returning to the victim, who had dropped down onto the floor, covering her head with her hands. He pushed her head into the mattress.

31. At about 9:58am, AB used his iPad to message the offender’s male friend, “CD”. AB asked CD to help calm the offender down because the offender was hurting AB’s mum and saying he was going to kill her.

32. As a result of being hit in the head and 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 from where she had covered her head with her hands to protect it from the offender’s blows. This is the actual bodily harm caused by count 5.

33. At about 10:33am, police arrived at the Coombs residence and knocked on the door.

34. The offender saw police from the window and told the victim to stay in the bedroom. The offender answered the door and police requested to speak with the victim to check on her welfare. The offender told police she was not there and refused to let them enter.

35. Police called the victim’s phone, which they had traced to the Coombs residence. The victim sounded distressed and upset. However, she told police she was in Belconnen, and that she was okay. The victim agreed to attend Tuggeranong Police Station to speak with police.

36. CD arrived at the Coombs residence while police were present. After CD arrived, the offender was calm and acted as if nothing had happened.

37. The victim then walked over to the house of a female friend (“her friend” or “the victim’s friend”), where she stayed for one to two hours, until she stopped trembling. During this time, she applied ice to her swollen face. She asked her friend to take her to the police station, which her friend agreed to do. The victim then returned home and put makeup on to cover her injuries. The offender checked over the victim’s face before she left to ensure he could not see any bruises.

38. At about 2:20pm, the victim attended the Tuggeranong Police Station and spoke to police. Police did not see any visible injuries on the victim, although they observed her to be wearing heavy makeup and on the verge of tears. The victim did not make any disclosures to police and left.

39. The victim returned to the Coombs residence and went to bed.

40. Police were concerned about the victim’s welfare and applied for an after-hours family violence order (AHFVO) on the victim’s behalf.

41. At about 7:45pm, a magistrate granted an AHFVO for a period of 72 hours, with conditions that prohibited the offender from: (a) being at the Coombs residence; (b) being within 10 m of the victim; (c) locating or attempting to locate the victim; (d) contacting the victim; or (e) engaging in behaviour that constitutes family violence towards the victim.

42. At about 8:40pm, police attended the Coombs residence and served the AHFVO on the offender. Police requested that he leave the premises, which he did.

43. It is significant that each of counts 4, 5 and 6 occurred in the home of the victim when a child was in the house and conscious of what was going on. Each of counts 4 and 5 are made more serious by the fact that they are rolled-up charges involving a number of acts, which individually involved offending. Count 4 is a mid range offence. Count 5, due to the number of different assaults and the range of injuries, is at the upper end of the mid range. Count 6 is a mid range offence, which was heard by AB, the couple’s child, and reported to CD. It occurred when the victim was being suffocated and, hence, was accompanied by the very real prospect that the offender would, in fact, kill her. It is at the upper end of the mid range of objective seriousness for this offence. Count 8 — Contravene family violence order

44. At about 2am on 27 July 2024, the offender returned to the Coombs residence in contravention of the AHFVO.

45. Several of the offender’s friends, including one male friend, “EF”, followed the offender to the Coombs residence and told him that he was not allowed to be there. The offender ignored them and went into the main bedroom where the victim was. The offender got into bed and fell asleep.

46. The victim asked the offender’s friend, EF, to stay the night because she was concerned that the offender may become violent again. The victim then went to sleep in AB’s room.

47. At about 10am, the offender woke up and thought he was going to miss his new flight to Bali, which was due to depart at 1:30pm that day.

48. The offender began screaming at the victim, who went to wake up EF.

49. The contravention of the AHFVO involved a flagrant and almost immediate breach of most aspects of the order. It did not, however, involve further physical violence, as what occurred subsequently is separately charged. It is a mid range offence.

Count 7 — Aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle (a rolled-up charge) Count 9 — Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (a rolled-up charge)

50. The offender grabbed the victim and dragged her back upstairs to the bedroom. Both AB and EF saw this and pleaded with the offender to stop.

51. Once upstairs, the offender started hitting the victim again while screaming at her. The victim’s ears started ringing from being hit and she was in pain. The offender began by slapping her face numerous times and then proceeded to use his fists to punch her face and head. This is all part of count 9.

52. At one point, the offender took off his T-shirt and wrapped it tightly around the victim’s neck while she was on the bed in the bedroom, with the offender on top of her. The victim could not breathe and was terrified that the offender would kill her. This is part of count 7. EF intervened by placing his body in between the offender and the victim and sitting upwards to push back on the offender.

53. EF physically intervened and attempted to stop the offender multiple times. At one point, they moved into the bathroom and the offender pulled the seat from the toilet and held it above his head as if to strike the victim. EF again had to intervene to stop the offender.

54. The victim tried to run from the bathroom, but the offender grabbed her by the neck and pinned her against the wall, causing her difficulty breathing. This is part of count 7.

55. While this was occurring, CD (the other friend of the offender) had arrived at the residence, and walked in while the offender was holding the victim against the bathroom wall.

56. The offender released the victim while he was distracted momentarily by CD, and she was able to get AB and run out the front door. The victim and AB ran to a friend’s house where they deadbolted the door and went upstairs.

57. The offender arrived at the friend’s house shortly after and attempted to get in through the door by kicking it repeatedly. The offender then climbed up onto the balcony and entered the residence. The victim and AB were hiding in a child’s bedroom inside the residence, with AB inside a cupboard and the two children who lived there inside the same room. One of those children was asleep.

58. The offender told the victim to come home with him, which she did, even though she did not want to. AB stayed at the friend’s residence.

59. Once back at the Coombs residence, the victim dropped down on the kitchen floor to seek cover from the offender. The offender hit and kicked the victim on the back and on the side of her hip, causing a bruise and red welts. This is part of count 9. One strike in particular caused extreme pain to the victim’s back. The victim told the offender to stop, which he eventually did when EF intervened.

60. When the offender was striking the victim in the back, she was concerned for the welfare of her unborn child. The victim told the offender that she could not feel the baby moving and he said “good”. At various other times on 26 July 2024, 27 July 2024 and previously, the offender had made comments to the effect that he did not want the child, and that the pregnancy had ruined his life.

61. However, the prosecution did not allege that the offender intended to cause any harm to the unborn child or that the offender in fact caused harm to the unborn child.

62. At about 10:43am on 27 July 2024, ACT Police Operations received a call from a Telstra operator stating that a distressed female had called requesting police before the call was disconnected.

63. The call had originated from the street number associated with the Coombs residence, and ACT Police Operations linked the call to the previous incident on 26 July 2024 at the Coombs residence.

64. At about 10:54am, police arrived at the Coombs residence and spoke with the victim, who stated that she had been assaulted by the offender. Police observed the victim to be highly emotional and visibly shaking, and to have dark bruising around her right eye and towards the bridge of her nose.

65. Police conducted checks of the Coombs residence but did not locate the offender. The victim told police that he had left as soon as he saw police arrive.

66. The victim was apprehensive about giving police a version of events and did not wish to make a statement, stating that she was too scared. EF told police that the victim had fallen over during an incident. Police requested that the ACT Ambulance Service attend.

67. At about 11:21am, police heard a loud bang in the side garden and saw that an upstairs window was open. A short time later, police observed the offender in the side garden area.

68. Police advised the offender that he was under arrest for breach of the AHFVO. As police approached the offender, he attempted to jump the fence. Police grabbed hold of the offender and, after a short struggle, he was restrained and handcuffed.

69. The offender was cautioned and taken into custody for family violence offences. The offender was highly aggressive and abusive towards police.

70. As the offender appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he was not offered the opportunity to participate in a recorded interview.

71. At about 11:49am, ambulance paramedics arrived at the Coombs residence. The victim told paramedics that she had not been struck in the abdomen and that she could feel the baby moving. The victim declined to go to hospital via ambulance and stated that she would take herself.

72. At about 5:56pm that day, the victim attended the Canberra Hospital. An initial examination confirmed that there were no signs of placental abruption or fetal distress, and the victim and her unborn child were medically cleared.

73. AB was exposed to the actions surrounding these offences. Both counts 7 and 9 are at the upper end of the mid range of objective seriousness for their respective offences.

Count 10 — Attempt to contravene family violence order

74. On 29 July 2024, the offender appeared before the ACT Magistrates Court in relation to the matters for which he had been arrested. He was refused bail and remanded in custody.

75. On the same date, the court granted a family violence order (FVO). The offender was named as the respondent, and he was provided with a copy of the FVO. The victim and AB were named as the protected persons. Relevantly, the FVO prohibited the offender from: (a) locating, or attempting to locate, the protected person(s); (b) contacting the protected person(s); (c) engaging in behaviour that constitutes family violence towards the protected person(s); (d) causing someone else to locate or attempt to locate the protected person(s); or (e) causing someone else to contact the protected person(s).

76. The offender was subsequently taken to the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC).

77. Detainees at the AMC are assigned individual telephone “accounts” through which calls are tracked and recorded. All parties to calls from detainees at the AMC are advised via a recorded message that calls may be recorded and monitored.

78. At 9:04am on 2 August 2024, the offender phoned his friend CD from the AMC, and the conversation was recorded.

79. The offender asked CD to do some calling around for him. The offender requested that CD contact a rehabilitation centre. The offender asked CD if he had heard about any visitation arrangements with AB. The offender asked CD, “has she mentioned anything”, and stated, “just confirm to her bruh. Like I’m happy to fucking jump through the hoops and that”.

80. The offender also said to CD, “can you, like, get in his ear and… tell him that I do love him?” The offender asked CD to “keep telling him, like… I've been fucking good”. CD indicated that he would do this.

81. At 10:23am on 3 August 2024, the offender phoned CD from the AMC and the conversation was recorded. During the conversation, the offender stated “if you could give my boy a big fucking cuddle from his dad, that would be lovely … and tell him it’s from me and I’m doing really good… but that you can’t tell him anything I’ve said, but that’s all good. Just ‘indirect’ it”. CD indicated that he would do that.

82. At 3:40pm that same day, the offender phoned CD from the AMC and the conversation was recorded. During the call, the offender dictated a letter to the victim. The offender requested that the victim provide maternity photos and that they discuss their newborn child’s middle name.

83. On 16 August 2024, police obtained the recordings of these phone calls.

84. CD confirmed to police that he had been speaking with the offender and that he had visited the victim and AB, but denied that he did so at the request of the offender.

85. This offending, had it been completed, would be at the low end of objective seriousness for a contravention of an FVO. The offending would have involved communication only. That communication would have been indirect. The content of the communication was not hostile or threatening. However, it was calculated action undertaken in a manner conscious of the need to avoid the restrictions in the order.

86. Photographs of the victim taken by police on 30 July 2024 show that she had two black eyes and some bruising around her abdomen.

87. The victim’s baby was born in the weeks that followed and was uninjured.

Count 11 — Traffic in a trafficable quantity of cannabis

88. At about 5:59pm on 30 July 2024, police executed a search warrant at the offender’s residence in Coombs. The victim was present and confirmed that the offender had resided at that address with her and AB for the last seven years. She confirmed that no one else lived at the address.

89. During the search, police located: (a) three canisters of pepper spray in the offender’s bedside table; (b) one canister of pepper spray in a large wooden cabinet in the lounge room on the ground floor; (c) a box containing 14.4 g of dried cannabis leaves located under the offender’s side of the bed in the master bedroom; (d) about $8,500 in cash in a safe in the main bedroom; (e) $40,225 in cash in a cardboard box in the kitchen; (f) a notebook with numbers and dates in the safe; (g) a notepad with various names, numbers and the words “no tick” in a shoebox; (h) 104.8 g of dried cannabis leaves in a Woolworths grocery bag in the middle drawer of the bedside table in the master bedroom; (i) a total of 11 heat lamps throughout the residence, including under the stairs, in the backyard and in the garden shed; (j) four bongs with cannabis residue — two in the laundry cupboards above the sink, and two in a large wooden cabinet in the ground floor living room; (k) four plastic containers containing items consistent with the cultivation of cannabis in the garden shed; (l) a cash counting machine in the bottom of the wardrobe in the master bedroom; and (m) in the large wooden cabinet in the ground floor lounge room: (i) 291.9 g of dried cannabis in two clear jars; (ii) a small bowl of ground cannabis; (iii) a plastic container with dried cannabis; (iv) a cannabis grinder; (v) a small clear bag containing cannabis seeds weighing 2.3 g; (vi) rooting hormone gel, suspected of being used in the cultivation of cannabis; (vii) a small wooden box containing items used to consume cocaine; and (viii) two digital scales with vegetable matter residue and other illicit drug residue on them.

90. On 9 August 2024, police seized the offender’s phone. A Cellebrite extraction of data from the phone revealed images relating to the buying and selling of illicit drugs including photos of cannabis captioned with product titles, photos and videos of cannabis plants and products, and messages consistent with the sale of cannabis.

91. The total amount of cannabis seized was 421 g.

92. So far as the quantity of cannabis is concerned, it is at the lower end of the range of weights that can be the subject of a simple trafficking charge (300 g to 30 kg). The trafficking was both to support the offender’s habit and to make a profit, as demonstrated by the amounts of cash which he also had. It is a low to mid range offence. In sentencing the offender for this offence, it is necessary to take into account the three other charges relating to the property found by police, being charges relating to possession of the pepper spray, the $48,725, and the cannabis seeds and heat lamps.

Victim impact

93. Victim impact statements were provided by the victim, her mother and AB. The statement of the victim indicates that she is still in fear of the offender. At the time of the offences, she thought she was going to die. She says, “I was so thankful for the police intervention with the FVO and him being removed”. Her statement indicates that the offending came in the context of the offender being controlling, so that the victim always made sure that she “factored in his emotions and opinions into every aspect of [her] life”. She feared going to the police because of repercussions from the offender. She refers to the impact on AB, which is also addressed in the her mother’s victim impact statement. The victim refers to the stress caused by bail applications, when she feared that the offender may be released from custody. She misses her old life and records her fear that, upon release from custody, the offender will “hunt me down with the intent [of] ending my life”.

94. AB, who is now eight years old, describes his fear at the time, and the fact that he now has nightmares and does not feel safe “when I see other dads yelling”. He is uncertain about the future. He says that he “used to think dads protected their kids” and he is scared that he will grow up to be like his own father. He states: “I do not want to be angry like he was. I just want to feel safe again and for Mum to be safe. I am scared he’ll come back and hurt us again”.

95. Two victim impact statements were prepared by the victim’s mother, one about the victim and the other about AB. In relation to the victim, the victim’s mother records that, leading up to the offences for which the offender was arrested, the victim and AB “created a system of appeasement and total secrecy in an attempt to avoid and de-escalate emotional outbursts - hiding all evidence from the outside world”. She describes the emotional changes that she has observed in her daughter as a result of her relationship with the offender.

96. So far as AB is concerned, the victim’s mother records symptoms consistent with those appearing in children exposed to emotional trauma, including difficulties with emotional regulation and being sensitive to perceived slights. She observes that AB remains so fearful that he barricades the bedroom door and checks camera footage in order to feel safe enough to go to sleep. He has difficulties at school, feeling isolated and not wanting to go. Her fundamental point is that AB has lost the innocence of his childhood and been exposed to things that he should not have been.

Subjective circumstances

97. The offender’s subjective circumstances are described both in a pre-sentence report and in a lengthy letter that he has written describing his upbringing in considerable detail and describing the circumstances leading up to the offences for which he is to be sentenced.

98. The offender is 31 years old.

99. He had a disrupted childhood, marred by neglect and homelessness. His parents were intravenous heroin and methamphetamine users. They struggled to cope when he was born. He was exposed at a young age to drug-related misconduct and lacked normal parental supervision.

100. From the age of seven, he was housed in refuges and foster care placements. He had two periods in family care with his grandmother and father respectively.

101. He experienced sexual abuse during a two-year foster care placement in New South Wales. His mother is now dead, and he has a poor relationship with his father. He has only limited contact with his four siblings.

102. He completed school to Year 10 but left school due to homelessness.

103. The victim was his partner of 11 years. She was also the victim of offending in 2017. That involved a breach of an FVO which, relevantly, prevented communication with the victim. His two children with the victim are aged 11 months and eight years old.

104. He was self-employed as a handyman and did labouring work through a labour hire company prior to entering custody. Before that, he was a road worker with ACT Roads.

105. He has some association with members of the Hells Angels outlaw motorcycle gang (OMCG) as a result of his drug dealing. He also has some long-term prosocial friends.

106. He commenced using cannabis at the age of 12 or 13, and this became problematic from the age of 16. It is his drug of choice, using it daily, other than for a period of two years from 2017 following a period of rehabilitation. In the lead up to the current offending, he consumed cocaine and MDMA, and increased his cannabis use.

107. In late 2017, he completed the Karoona rehabilitation program run by Karralika. He subsequently suffered a workplace injury which led to carpal tunnel syndrome in 2019. In that same year, his mother died. Those were the circumstances in which he took up drug dealing as a means of paying for his drug use, and that led him to associate with antisocial people. Further contact with the OMCG from April 2024 led to an increase in stress and an increase in drug use.

108. While in custody, he commenced the Solaris Therapeutic Community program but was exited after 11 weeks of the 16-week program.

109. He previously has had diagnoses of anxiety and depression. He has an extensive history of contact with counsellors and psychologists in his youth as a result of his homelessness.

110. He told the author of the pre-sentence report that, prior to his offending, he had been overwhelmed due to having taken on too much work. He described that, at the time, “he had just returned from Brisbane for a tattoo appointment, before a planned trip to Indonesia for a holiday”. He had consumed seven Xanax tablets prior to the offending. He recognised that the victim would have been physically and emotionally hurt and scared by his actions.

111. He attributed his drug trafficking to his associations with OMCG-associated people, financial motivations and his own long-term daily use of cannabis.

112. He was assessed as suitable for a community service work condition.

113. In his letter, which was tendered, the offender expressed remorse for his actions and a desire to do better in the future. In particular, he referred to the potential to have a future “without associations with criminals, without violence and mostly without the use and abuse of substances”. He described his regret about failing to provide an upbringing for his son that avoided the abandonment and neglect that he felt as a child himself.

114. While in custody, the offender has progressed from medium to minimum security classification. He has also taken up opportunities for education and training while in custody. He completed a Certificate II in Construction, a course on prevention of crystalline silica exposure, a course on asbestos, an awareness education session on viral hepatitis, the orientation phase of the Solaris Therapeutic Community program as well as other, later, components of that program, a parenting course, and therapy with the Supports and Interventions Unit at the AMC.

Criminal history

115. The offender has only a limited criminal history. In the ACT, he has two previous convictions for contravening a protection or family violence order. One of those involved the same victim as the current offending. Both involved communications in breach of the orders. He has a conviction for common assault in New South Wales from 2015.

Pleas of guilty

116. The offender pleaded guilty on 28 March 2025 in the Magistrates Court. The pleas were th th entered at the 15 mention of the family violence charges and the 10 mention of the drug charges, following pleas of not guilty, the provision of the brief of evidence and negotiations between the parties. The entry of guilty pleas was significant because it avoided the necessity for witnesses, including the victim and AB, to give evidence, with the re-traumatising potential that this would involve. The utilitarian value of the pleas warrants a reduction of between 20 and 25 percent on the sentences that would otherwise be imposed.

117. The pleas of guilty also involve an acceptance of responsibility, which is a positive step towards rehabilitation.

Time in custody

118. The offender was arrested by police on 27 July 2024 and has remained in custody since that time. The total time in custody attributable solely to these offences is 387 days, or one year and 22 days. This time will be taken into account by backdating the sentences to the date when the offender went into custody.

Consideration

119. The lifelong effects of deprivation and dysfunction recognised in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 loom large in this case. There can be no doubt that the offender’s upbringing has deprived him of the psychological and emotional resources that a person with a more stable and secure background might have had to deal with the challenges of life. These impacts are likely to be lifelong as a result of being embedded to a greater or lesser extent within the structure of his personality. The words “greater or lesser extent” are significant because they recognise that there is an extent to which the impacts may be reduced by conscious effort, psychological assistance and the life circumstances of the offender as an adult. Although letters such as the very detailed letter written by the offender must be treated with some caution because of their untested and unverified nature, the offender appears to recognise his predicament and be motivated to be a better person and parent than his parents were to him. Further, the evidence indicates that the offender has made good use of the educational and self-improvement opportunities provided within the AMC.

120. This is therefore a case in which it is clear that Bugmy considerations pull in both directions. On the one hand, they moderate the offender’s culpability for the offending, which was contributed to by his deprived background, but on the other hand, they increase the need for specific deterrence and community protection, given the lifelong nature of these deficits.

121. Each of the purposes of sentencing are significant. As I indicated in DPP v Laic [2025] ACTSC 365, the need for general deterrence of men choking or strangling women is so significant that men who engage in that conduct will often be given a custodial sentence involving full-time detention. That arises from the prevalence of the conduct, the dangerousness of the conduct and the use of such conduct in controlling relationships in order to subordinate women. That is certainly the case here.

122. The sentences must also denounce the conduct, hold the offender accountable and recognise the harm done to the victim, AB and the community more generally. They must deter the offender from committing such offences in the future.

123. Yet, the sentences must also leave room for and, to the extent possible consistent with other purposes of sentencing, promote the rehabilitation of the offender. There is some hope, having regard to the offender’s stated understanding and motivation, that rehabilitation is possible. However, it comes against the background of the lifelong impacts of dysfunction in his early life. There is no doubt that it is in the long-term interests of the community that he be rehabilitated so that he no longer presents a threat to any intimate partner and avoids all of the criminal factors associated with being involved in trade in illicit drugs.

124. The threshold in s 10 of the Sentencing Act is passed in relation to each offence, although only just in relation to count 1. On that charge, the appropriate sentence is a sentence of two months’ imprisonment, reduced to one month and 15 days on account of the plea of guilty. I consider that this sentence can appropriately be dealt with by a suspended sentence of imprisonment, given its objective seriousness and the limited criminal history that the offender had at that point. The suspension will be subject to entry into a good behaviour order, with the core conditions only, for a period of two years from today.

125. So far as the balance of the counts are concerned, the maximum custodial penalty, the starting point, the sentence and the degree of cumulation are as follows:

Count Maximum Starting point Sentence Cumulation custodial (months) (months) (months) penalty (years) 2 7 6 4.5 4.5 3 7 4 3 2 4 7 20 16 14 5 7 20 16 5 6 13 18 14 3 8 5 12 9 4 7 7 24 19 12 9 7 20 16 6 10 5 6 4.5 2 11 10 17 13 10 TOTAL 62.5

126. The aggregate sentence is 62 months and 15 days’, or five years, two months and 15 days’, imprisonment.

127. The sentences give an aggregate sentence of imprisonment which is outside the range of sentences that may be dealt with by an intensive correction order or a drug and alcohol treatment order. For that reason, I decline to adjourn the proceedings so as to permit assessment of the offender for eligibility and suitability for a drug and alcohol treatment order, as had been requested by the offender.

128. As the sentences are to be served by way of full-time detention, it is necessary to set a non-parole period. In my view, a non-parole period of 36 months is appropriate. This is approximately 58 percent of the aggregate sentence. It reflects a balance between the need for punishment and deterrence on the one hand, and the potential for rehabilitation and for the offender to spend a significant period subject to supervision in the community prior to the end of his sentence on the other.

Orders

129. In the following orders, the references to count numbers are those as explained in these reasons and are included so as to make the orders more understandable in the context of the reasons. The orders of the Court are: (1) On CAN 9193/2024 (Count 1 — Aggravated choke, strangle, suffocate (family violence)), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one month and 15 days, which sentence is wholly suspended upon the offender entering into an undertaking to comply with his good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from today. (2) On CAN 9179/2024 (Count 2 — Aggravated choke, strangle, suffocate (family violence)), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four months and 15 days, commencing on 27 July 2024 and ending on 11 December 2024. (3) On CAN 9180/2024 (Count 3 — Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (family violence)), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three months, commencing on 12 November 2024 and ending on 11 February 2025. (4) On CAN 9203/2024 (Count 4 — Aggravated choke, strangle, suffocate (family violence)), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 16 months, commencing on 12 December 2024 and ending on 11 April 2026. (5) On CAN 9207/2024 (Count 5 — Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (family violence)), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 16 months, commencing on 12 May 2025 and ending on 11 September 2026. (6) On CAN 9208/2024 (Count 6 — Aggravated reckless threat to kill (family violence)), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 14 months, commencing on 12 October 2025 and ending on 11 December 2026. (7) On CAN 7670/2024 (Count 8 — Contravene Family Violence Order), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, commencing on 12 July 2026 and ending on 11 April 2027. (8) On CAN 9227/2024 (Count 7 — Aggravated choke, strangle, suffocate (family violence)), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 19 months, commencing on 12 September 2026 and ending on 11 April 2028. (9) On CAN 7671/2024 (Count 9 — Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (family violence)), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 16 months, commencing on 12 June 2027 and ending on 11 October 2028. (10) On CAN 8999/2024 (Count 10 — Attempt contravene Family Violence Order), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four months and 15 days, commencing on 27 July 2028 and ending on 11 December 2028. (11) On CAN 9189/2024 (Count 11 — Traffic in trafficable quantity of cannabis), taking into account CAN 9190/2024, CAN 9191/2024, CAN 3287/2025, the offender is convicted and sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 12 September 2028 and ending on 11 October 2029. (12) The nonparole period is three years, commencing on 27 July 2024 and ending on 26 July 2027. I certify that the preceding one hundred and twenty-nine [129] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: