DPP v Robins

1. The offender, “William Robins” (a pseudonym), has pleaded guilty to four counts of choke, suffocate or strangle, contrary to s 28(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The offender has also entered a plea of guilty to a transfer charge of common assault (CAN 1492/2023), contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

2. The above pleas are to an indictment dated 6 March 2024. Count 1 on the indictment was not proceeded with, and Count 3 (reckless threat to kill; CAN 1493/2023, contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900) is a scheduled offence which is to be taken into account pursuant to Part 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The four counts of choke, suffocate or strangle which the offender pleaded guilty to are therefore Counts 2, 4, 5 and 6 (CAN 1491/2023, CAN 1490/2023, CAN 1489/2023 and CAN 1488/2023, respectively).

3. The maximum penalty for the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle is 5 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for common assault is 2 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for making a reckless threat to kill is 10 years’ imprisonment.

The offending

4. The victim of all the charged offences is the offender’s now ex-wife. The offences were committed during the course of their marriage.

5. The victim and the offender first met online in 2007. The offender is American, and was a member of the US Air Force. The victim and the offender had regular communication via video call after they met online. The offender visited Australia in 2008, and following this, the victim visited the offender in the United States of America. The offender proposed to the victim during this trip, and they were married in 2009.

6. The victim and the offender first lived together in America for approximately two to three years. Subsequently, they moved to Turkey for two years. For most of this period, the relationship was “positive”.

7. The offender’s behaviour changed in Turkey after they lost their first conceived child. He began verbally abusing the victim, including repeatedly calling her inept. After living in Turkey, the victim and the offender moved to Germany. They had their first child, a daughter, in 2014. Their relationship continued to deteriorate in Germany. The offender would humiliate the victim in public, verbally abuse her, and threaten to leave the relationship. The offender was unable to control his anger.

8. The victim and the offender moved back to America in 2017. They subsequently moved to Australia in 2018 when the victim’s parents were involved in a serious car accident. During this period, the offender remained unable to control his anger. Often when the victim questioned him, he would become violent. He would try to strangle her, or hit her on the back or side of her head. He would also threaten to harm the victim or their daughter if the victim told anyone about the abuse.

9. Some of the offender’s behaviour was observed by the victim’s mother. For example, the victim’s mother had heard the offender call the victim “inept” while they were living in Australia. The victim’s mother saw the offender lose his temper on approximately two occasions.

Count 2: Suffocate

10. On one occasion in late 2020, the victim was asleep and woke up to find that the offender had put a pillow over her face and was suffocating her. The offender was pushing the pillow down with his full weight. The victim tried to struggle, but was unable to call out and did not have the strength to get the offender off her.

11. The victim began to lose consciousness. The offender then removed the pillow and stated, “If I hear you breathe or if you turn over and disturb me I can kill you and I will kill you”. This conduct constitutes the offence of reckless threat to kill which is to be taken into account.

12. On an unknown date, the victim recorded in her diary that the offender told her that if she moved in bed, or if he heard her breathe, that “he would kill me”.

13. This type of conduct occurred almost fortnightly from late 2020 to June 2021. The offender is not to be sentenced for these other acts. Count 2 represents a single instance of choking.

Count 4: Choking

14. Around November 2020, the offender and the victim got into an argument at their home. The offender approached the victim and put both hands around her neck and strangled her. The offender aggressively shook the victim approximately six times. The victim told the offender she wanted him to leave, and he replied, “when I’ve saved enough money, I will”.

15. Their daughter was present during this incident. Their daughter recorded in her diary that on 28 November 2020 “papa shook mama and grabbed mama by the neck and shook her”. The victim also later told her mother about this incident. Count 5: Choking

16. Around June 2021, the victim was asleep. She woke up to find that the offender had both hands on the edge of the sheet, and was using the sheet to press down on her neck. The offender kept the pressure on her neck for up to 20 seconds. The victim saw that the offender was gritting his teeth and “appeared extremely scary”, however the offender did not say anything. After the offender ceased this conduct, he rolled over and went back to sleep.

17. On occasions when the offender was driving their daughter to school and the victim was not present, the offender would tell their daughter that one day he would kill the victim while the victim was sleeping, and he would do it by strangling her.

Count 6: Choking

18. On a Saturday in 2021, the victim, offender and their daughter were out running errands in the family car. The victim was driving, and the offender was in the passenger seat. Their daughter was in the back of the car.

19. The victim and the offender had a disagreement. During the course of this disagreement, the offender put one hand around the victim’s neck and pushed her into the driver side door, causing her head to slam against the window. The victim nearly lost control of the vehicle.

20. Their daughter was asleep in the back of the car, but woke up to the victim calling out to her. The victim said that “dad’s tried to strangle me”. Their daughter saw the offender holding the victim by the throat with both hands against the side of the door. The victim was calling out “stop it”.

21. Their daughter recorded in her diary that “papa tried to strangle mama in the car while she is driving”. The victim also told her mother about an incident where she was driving, and the offender grabbed her head and hit it against the door of the car.

Transfer charge: Common Assault

22. In early 2021, the victim was in her daughter’s room and was talking to her about something she had done wrong. The offender came up behind her and hit her on the back of the head with the back of his right palm, and told the victim to leave their daughter alone. This caused the victim to get temporary tunnel vision, and a ringing in her right ear. Victim Impact Statements

23. Victim Impact Statements were provided by the victim, their daughter and the victim’s mother.

24. In her victim impact statement, the victim described her experience of domestic violence and coercive control at the hands of the offender as a “slow torture of the mind”. The victim said that the offender “took away [her] peace, [her] sense of personal safety and [her] trust in others which [she is] likely never to regain”. She described the ongoing physical and psychological issues caused by the offending, including anxiety, flashbacks and chronic pain. She said that the impacts of the offender’s abuse were “immeasurably life changing”, and had left an “indelible scar on [her] soul”.

25. In her victim impact statement, the victim’s mother told the Court that she and her husband had felt “sad, disillusioned, devastated, powerless and fearful” when they had learnt of the offender’s abuse. The victim’s mother recalled that her daughter had been a “woman with a life full of promise,” however the offender’s actions had turned her into “a shell of her former self.” The victim’s mother stated that they had been “at a loss” as to how to help their daughter, and that they were “still greatly concerned about the ongoing safety of [their] daughter and granddaughter”.

26. The daughter of the victim and the offender recalled in her victim impact statement how she had watched “as [her] father abused [her] mother almost every day”. She stated that “[n]o one can imagine how awful it feels to see such things”. She said that the offender’s abuse had exacerbated the symptoms of her own Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and that she had also “learned from [her] father that it was okay to hurt other people to get what you want”. She reported that she has required extensive therapy to help her address her behavioural issues, and that she was “ashamed and very sad of what [the offender] did”. She concluded with a statement of strength, telling the Court and her father that she is now doing well at school, and winning medals for gymnastics, but that she would never forget what her father had done.

27. Aspects of some of the victim impact statements were objected to on behalf of the offender as concerning offences that are not encompassed within the offences before the Court, or concerning opinions as to the state of mind of the offender when he engaged in particular acts. In response, the prosecutor made clear that the prosecution did not invite the Court to make any finding inconsistent with, or beyond the Agreed Facts. The prosecutor also explained that the victim impact statements were relied on as descriptions of the victims’ perceptions of the offending, and the impact upon them.

28. Given this concession, it is not necessary to formally rule on the admissibility of particular statements within the victim impact statements. However, the present case is a reminder of the need for prosecutors to explain the parameters of the sentencing process to victims, and to inform the Court and the offender where matters contained within a victim impact statement are not relied on as matters in aggravation of the sentence to be imposed.

Guilty plea

29. The offender entered pleas of guilty on 17 March 2025, which was the first day that the proceedings were listed for trial, having indicated an intention to plead guilty the previous day.

30. The utilitarian value of the plea of these pleas was relatively limited, particularly as it occurred after the Court had determined various pretrial applications, and after the offender’s daughter had given evidence. Nonetheless, a jury pool was not required to attend Court, and the victim was not required to give evidence. I will afford the offender a 10% reduction in the sentences to be imposed by reason of his pleas.

The offender’s subjective case

Background

31. The offender’s background is outlined in his Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report (ICOAR). The offender was born in Chicago, in the United States of America. He described his childhood as “typical”, and reported that he maintained regular contact with his parents, who reside in the USA.

32. Following high school, the offender served in the American military for 25 years. He told the ICOAR author that he recalled serving in various war zones, where he was “continuously exposed to traumatic scenes”. The offender has also obtained tertiary qualifications, including a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree.

33. The offender migrated to Australia in 2019 to live with the victim. He is currently residing in Australia on a permanent partner visa, which he obtained in February 2020. The Department of Home Affairs has advised that cancellation of the offender’s visa may be considered following his sentencing. I was not invited to mitigate the sentence on this basis, nor would it have been appropriate to do so, given the absence of any evidence concerning the likelihood of deportation: see Director of Public Prosecutions v Umunakwe (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 139 at [77(iii)] and the cases cited therein. Mental health

34. The offender’s mental health is detailed in a psychiatric report by Professor David Greenberg, dated 23 July 2025. In his interview with Professor Greenberg, the offender described how his exposure to trauma during his military service negatively affected his mental state. The offender reported that he became more irritable and withdrawn from about 2003, and began experiencing outbursts of anger in around 2012. He was prescribed the medication Duloxetine in around 2021 – 2022. He told Professor Greenberg that following this prescription, he was not as angry or agitated anymore.

35. Professor Greenberg diagnosed the offender with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), in partial remission, noting that the offender had also previously been diagnosed with PTSD in 2023 and 2024. Professor Greenberg explained that the offender’s symptoms included irritability, depressed mood, insomnia and outbursts of anger or violence.

36. Professor Greenberg was asked about the impact of the offender’s mental health on his offending. He responded: In my view, [the offender] had a significant mental disability at the time of the offending, namely untreated post-traumatic stress disorder and depression with associated chronic insomnia and headaches… In my view his mental health significantly contributed to the commission of these offences. His capacity to control his anger and temper outbursts were likely impaired due to his mental condition at the time of these offences.

37. In his report and his oral evidence, Professor Greenberg expressed the view that the offender retained “a degree of control” over his actions, as he “knew when to stop applying pressure to [the victim’s] throat”. Professor Greenberg explained that “[w]hat he lost control of was his ability to control his anger in general which is one of his post-traumatic stress disorders as documented in my report”.

38. Professor Greenberg considered that the offender’s prognosis was positive in the short-to-medium term if the offender continues his treatment.

Letter from the offender

39. The offender provided a letter of remorse to the Court, dated 21 October 2025. In his letter, the offender addresses both the Court and the victim, and expresses his “acknowledgement and deep sorrow for [his] actions which have had such a detrimental effect on [the victim].” He stated that failing to ensure the victim’s safety and wellbeing was “a regret that [he] will always carry with me and remorse over for life”. He said that: Similar to you, I will be affected for life by my regrettable actions against you. I am forever on medication as I understand it, to prevent incidents like those of our past from happening again. Or new incidents from ever occurring. I hope this brings you solace and helps in your healing. I do not use this as an excuse for what I have done, but simply my apologies and information on the why/what has caused my unintended actions to result in your harm. The offender’s criminal history

40. Prior to the time during which the current offences were committed, the offender had no criminal history. In 2022, the offender entered a plea of guilty for a charge of common assault against his daughter, which occurred in August 2021. The charge related to the offender hitting his daughter with a belt multiple times because she did not do what she was told. The offence was proven and dismissed without conviction. Efforts at rehabilitation

41. The offender had been volunteering for two days per week at the social enterprise Grind to Ground; however, the enterprise has recently ceased operating. In addition, the offender occupies volunteer and charitable roles within the Veterans Motorcycle Club (VMC).

42. The offender attended the Room4Change Men’s Behaviour Change Program, facilitated by the Domestic Violence Crisis Service, in 2021-2022. However, the offender did not complete the program. The offender chose to exit the program after completing 17 of the 30 sessions. The offender told the author of the ICOAR that he thought the program was a “waste of time”. The Room4Change risk assessment also notes that “at no stage during his participation did [the offender] demonstrate any insight or empathy into the impacts of his use of violence”.

Character references

43. Character references for the offender were provided by three friends; the offender’s current partner; and three individuals the offender had met through his partner, being the offender’s partner’s father, sister and close friend.

44. The offender’s character references speak of the offender’s good character and positive contributions to community events. His friends describe him as honest, respectful and compassionate. The offender’s partner describes him as “the most caring, supportive and engaging man I have met”. Her father states that the offender is “a human being with a great heart”, and her sister notes that the offender is a “caring, honest and loyal person”.

45. The character references also describe the offender’s contributions to community events. The offender’s friends from the VMC note that he regularly volunteers at events, and has a “strong civic spirit”. One friend notes that the offender has found a “place and purpose in helping and supporting other Veterans within the Club, and within the local community”.

46. In oral submissions, counsel for the prosecution noted that the character referees made limited reference to their awareness of the charges against the offender, or the facts of the offences to which he had pleaded guilty. The prosecutor expressed a concern that the referees had not been provided with the “full picture” about the offender.

47. In light of these concerns, the offender’s counsel was granted leave to provide amended character references which acknowledged the details of the offending, either by way of postscript or through new character references. Subsequently, the offender’s three friends and his partner, as well as his partner’s sister and close friend, all provided postscripts to their character references.

48. In the postscripts, the referees each confirmed that they had read the Agreed Statement of Facts for this matter, as well as the offender’s letter of remorse, which was provided to the Court at the sentencing hearing. The referees reaffirm the content of their statements in light of these documents.

49. Some of the referees acknowledge the seriousness of the offences, and highlight the “genuine progress” that the offender has made in “acting with responsibility and integrity”. The offender’s partner also clarified that they have faced pressures and disagreements in their relationship, and have been able to “work together… with understanding and without expectations” to resolve any issues.

Comparative cases

50. The Court is required by s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act to consider sentences imposed in comparative cases when determining the sentences to be imposed on the offender. The Court was provided with comparative cases from both parties. A table containing each of those comparative cases is attached to this judgment.

51. I have taken the sentences imposed in those decisions into account, whilst bearing in mind the well-known limitations of comparative decisions: see, for example, R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 at [29]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [51]-[53]; Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48]-[49]. In particular, I have been careful to bear in mind that a number of sentences imposed in those cases involved offences that carried higher maximum penalties. Determination

52. In a recent decision which also concerned an offender who had choked his domestic partner, the Court of Appeal explained the reasons why offending of this nature must be taken seriously by the Court as follows: The need for deterrence (both general and specific) and denunciation was high. As Bell CJ recently explained in R v Thompson [2025] NSWCCA 133 at [1], [5] – [6]: Domestic violence is a scourge that afflicts modern Australia. Regrettably, this is not a fresh phenomenon. In a decision given almost 20 years ago, Johnson J, sitting as a member of this Court, surveyed cases over the previous decade highlighting the issue: R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; (2006) 164 A Crim R 179 at [67]-[88]. Thus, for example, in R v Devine (Supreme Court of Tasmania, 5 July 1993, unreported), Underwood J had said: Domestic violence is a profound problem and it is the duty of the courts to denounce offences such as these and attempt to deter its recurrence by you and other men. The relationship of husband and wife, albeit estranged, is an aggravating factor for violence of this kind constitutes a breach of trust. It is also an abuse of power and control on one who, in the circumstances, was in a position of vulnerability. … By 2016, the High Court was able to observe that “current sentencing practices for offences involving domestic violence depart from past sentencing practices for this category of offence because of changes in societal attitudes to domestic relations”: The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48 at [21]. This Court has routinely decried the commission of crimes of domestic violence and advised that it “must be dealt with sternly by the courts, to mark society’s strong disapprobation of such conduct, and to reinforce the right of women to live unmolested by a former partner”: Yaman v R [2020] NSWCCA 239 at [131]. These observations apply with equal force in this Territory. Robin (a pseudonym) v DPP [2025] ACTCA 40 at [55] – [56]

53. The observations of Bell CJ also have particular resonance in the present case. Three of the choking offences (counts 2, 4 and 5), as well as the charge of common assault, were committed by the offender upon his then partner, within her home, which was a place where she was entitled to feel safe. The offences were not isolated. The victim was particularly vulnerable in connection with the offences giving rise to Counts 2 and 5, as she was asleep when the offender put his hands around her neck. The offending giving rise to Counts 2 and 5 were committed with the use of an aid (a pillow and a sheet). Count 6 occurred whilst the offender was driving a car, which caused significant additional risk both to the victim’s life and the life of their daughter who was a passenger in the car. The offending giving rise to Counts 4 and 6, as well as the transfer charge, was committed in the presence of the child of the victim and the offender. Additionally, a threat to kill is to be taken into account in relation to Count 2. The common assault caused transitory and temporary injury without any chronic effects. It did not involve any threats, or instruments to inflict injury.

54. I do not accept the submission made on behalf of the offender that counts 2 and 5 may have occurred whilst the offender was himself asleep, or affected by ‘night terrors’. Any suggestion that the offender may have been acting involuntarily is inconsistent with the offender’s pleas of guilty, and with Professor Greenberg’s evidence that the offender “had a degree of control” when engaging in the conduct which was the subject of the charges. Further, the words spoken by the offender at the time of Count 2 (“If I hear you breathe or if you turn over and disturb me I can kill you and I will kill you”) and in the offender’s warning to their daughter (that one day he would kill the victim while the victim was sleeping, and he would do it by strangling her) are entirely inconsistent with any suggestion that the offender’s acts occurred whilst he was asleep or were the product of a night terror.

55. The family violence context of the offending operates to aggravate the objective seriousness of each offence: DPP v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 at [135]. As the Court observed in Robin, the ACT legislature has recently created aggravated forms of the current offences, with higher maximum penalties which apply where the offence is committed in a family violence context. Those maximum penalties do not apply to the present offending, which occurred prior to the enactment of those provisions. The assessment of the appropriate penalties to be applied must occur against the yardstick of the maximum penalty that was in place at the time of the offending.

56. As outlined above, the character references describe the offending as entirely out of character. However, as noted by Taylor J in DPP v Benn (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 266 at [85]: … It is uncontroversial to observe that the nature of family violence is such that it is often deliberately perpetrated in circumstances which reduce the possibility of detection. It is therefore regularly the case that a perpetrator has not revealed that aspect of their character to people in their lives who love and respect them. Whilst naturally this can result in surprise when the conduct is exposed, the fact that others have not themselves witnessed or experienced it from the perpetrator, does not undermine the fact of its occurrence or the extent of its effect. A modern understanding of family violence includes an appreciation that a victim’s experience of a family violence perpetrator can be quite different to the experience of the perpetrator by other people around them. The two realties need not be mutually exclusive.

57. I accept that the offender has some remorse for his offending, as expressed in his letter to the Court and in his acknowledgement to the ICOAR author that his actions were wrong. However, I do not accept that the offender’s remorse is complete. As outlined above, the Room4Change risk assessment reported that “at no stage during his participation did [the offender] demonstrate any insight or empathy into the impacts of his use of violence”. In his conversations with the ICOAR author, he apportioned blame to the victim, asserting that he was “pushed” by her continuous negative references about his parents and his son. The offender’s expressions of remorse described in the amended character references were also somewhat muted. For example, one friend said that the offender had discussed the offending with her “many” times, and had never “given any reason for [her] to believe [that the offender] did not feel great remorse and accountability”.

58. Like the prosecution, I am concerned about the character reference provided by the offender’s current partner, which describes conversations in which the offender compares his current relationship to his relationship with the victim, and tells his partner how different she is to the victim because she doesn’t “place any expectations on him”. The tenor of these conversations is far from a complete acceptance of the offender’s responsibility, or remorse for his offending against the victim. Given the offender’s incomplete remorse, I assess his prospects of rehabilitation as positive but guarded. There is a need for specific deterrence and to reinforce the offender’s understanding of the seriousness of the offending and the harm that it has caused.

59. The prosecution did not dispute the offender’s diagnosis of PTSD, nor its role in the offending. I accept that the offender’s mental illness will render any sentence of fulltime custody more onerous.

60. I also accept the submission made by the offender’s counsel that, as a result of his military training, the offender was desensitised to the use of violence as a tool of control, and that the offender was repeatedly exposed to significantly traumatising situations during his active service. The offender’s PTSD, which directly arose from his service, was untreated and uncontrolled, at the time of the offending. Dr Greenberg’s unchallenged evidence was that the offender’s mental health significantly contributed to the commission of the offences, in that it impaired the offender’s capacity to control his anger. It follows that the offender’s moral culpability is reduced by reason of his mental illness. There will be some reduction in the weight to be given to general deterrence by reason of these matters.

61. It does not follow, however, that the Court should excuse the offending, or significantly reduce the sentence to be imposed. It is regrettably the case that domestic violence offences are often committed by offenders who are struggling with their own demons. The protection of victims and the recognition of the harm caused, requires the imposition of sentences that reflect the emotional damage and the acute risk to life that is involved in offending of this nature. As the High Court observed in Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 at [54]: The criminal law is more than a mode of social engineering which operates by providing disincentives directed to reducing unacceptably deviant behaviour within the community. To view the criminal law exclusively, or even principally, as a mechanism for the regulation of the risks of deviant behaviour is to fail to recognise the long-standing obligation of the state to vindicate the dignity of each victim of violence, to express the community's disapproval of that offending, and to afford such protection as can be afforded by the state to the vulnerable against repetition of violence.

62. For this reason, the Court stated at [53]: Mitigating factors must be given appropriate weight, but they must not be allowed "to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence”.

63. The s 10 threshold is crossed. The appropriate terms of imprisonment are as follows: (a) For the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle another person (count 2: CAN 1491/2023), imprisonment for 1 year and 9 months, discounted from 2 years. (b) For the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle another person (count 4: CAN 1490/2023), imprisonment for 1 year and 9 months, discounted from 2 years. (c) For the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle another person (count 5: CAN 1489/2023), imprisonment for 1 year and 4 months, discounted from 1 year and 6 months. (d) For the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle another person (count 6: CAN 1488/2023), imprisonment 2 years, discounted from 2 years and 3 months. (e) For the offence of common assault (CAN 1492/2023), imprisonment for 5 months, discounted from 6 months.

64. These sentences reflect my assessment that count 6 is the most serious of the offences, because it occurred whilst the offender was driving and involved significant risk to the victim and their daughter; and counts 2 and 4 require the next most significant sentences, by reason of the threat to kill that is to be taken into account with respect to count 2 and the presence of their daughter in respect of count 4.

65. Although the offences concerned the same victim, they were committed on different occasions, and involved separate acts which each caused harm to the victim and their daughter. The offences will be partially accumulated to recognise principles of totality: Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59 at [63]. The overall sentence will be imprisonment for 4 years and 5 months.

66. The offender’s counsel urged the Court to consider ordering that the sentence to be served by way of an ICO. I do not accept that the purposes of sentencing can be met by such a course, and the head sentence that has been set would preclude the imposition of a ICO in any event. However, in view of the offender’s reduced moral culpability for his offending, and the onerous effects of his mental illness on his experience of custody, it is appropriate to order a shorter than usual non-parole period. I will impose a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months.

Orders

67. The orders of the Court are: (1) For the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle another person (count 2: CAN 1491/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 9 months, discounted from 2 years, commencing 25 November 2025 and expiring on 24 August 2027. (2) For the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle another person (count 4: CAN 1490/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 9 months, discounted from 2 years, commencing 25 September 2026 and expiring 24 June 2028. (3) For the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle another person (count 5: CAN 1489/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 4 months, discounted from 1 year and 6 months, commencing 25 September 2027 and expiring on 24 January 2029. (4) For the offence of choke, suffocate or strangle another person (count 6: CAN 1488/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, discounted from 2 years and 3 months, commencing 25 January 2028 and expiring 24 January 2030. (5) For the offence of common assault (CAN 1492/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 5 months, discounted from 6 months, commencing 25 November 2029 and expiring on 24 April 2030. (6) The effective head sentence is imprisonment for 4 years and 5 months, commencing 25 November 2025 and expiring 24 April 2030. (7) A non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months is imposed, expiring on 24 February 2028. I certify that the preceding sixty-seven [67] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker. Associate: Date: ANNEXURE A – COMPARATIVE CASES

Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence DPP v Clifford Charges: Verdins principles Choke 1: 1 year 6 [2025] ACTSC applied months’ 2x aggravated common assault (FV) 307 imprisonment, 3x aggravated choke (FV) discounted from 2 Baker J Plea of guilty at years. 1x aggravated attempt inflict grievous bodily Magistrates Court harm (FV) before brief of evidence prepared Choke 2: 1 year, 10 months, 15 Chokes occurred in the context of ongoing days’ conflict, and subsequent to an assault. All Significant criminal imprisonment, acts occurred in the victim’s home. history, includes 1x discounted from 2 Choke 1 involved the offender placing the family violence years, 6 months victim in a headlock for around 10 seconds, offence in 2017 and she began seeing stars. Choke 3: 2 years, Choke 2 involved the offender grabbing the 3 months victim by the throat with both hands without imprisonment, warning and lifting her up. She could not discounted from 3 breathe and had tunnel vision and flashing years lights. Third choke involved the offender placing his knee on the victim’s neck. Total sentence: 4 years’ Further serious offending subsequent to the imprisonment. chokes, and the offending occurred on a single day. NPP 2 years and 6 months.

DPP v Robin Charges: Early guilty plea Each count of (a pseudonym) choke received 2 1 x choke – render insensible (FV) Prior DV history [2024] ACTSC years and 4 322 2 x choke (FV) Alcohol issues but months’ rehabilitation had imprisonment. 1 x assault occasioning ABH (FV) commenced Burns AJ 1 x contravene FVO Treatment for DV Total sentence: factors had 5 years and 3 commenced with Sentence The victim was out with friends. During this months’ counselling affirmed on time, a male friend messaged her, which imprisonment appeal: was seen by the offender on a shared NPP 2 years and device at home. 9 months When she returned home, the offender Robin (a grabbed the victim and squeezed her throat pseudonym) v until she was unconscious. Sentence DPP [2025] affirmed on ACTSC 40 When the victim regained consciousness, appeal: she began walking to the bedroom. The offender grabbed her and held her neck, Robin (a pseudonym) v Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence Mossop and saying if it wasn’t for the kids that he would DPP [2025] Baker JJ, slit her throat. ACTSC 40 Muller AJ The victim went to the bedroom where their children were sleeping and threw up in the Mossop and ensuite toilet. The offender pushed her head Baker JJ, Muller into the toilet bowl and flushed twice, before AJ punching the victim several times. Following his arrest, the offender sent the victim a letter in contravention of an FVO.

DPP v Charges: Guilty plea at case Choke 1: 20 Gale [2023] conference months’ 1x threatening witness ACTSC 297 imprisonment, Bugmy principles 2x aggravated choke (FV) discounted from applied 24 months 1x aggravated stalking (FV) Mossop J Criminal history 1x aggravated assault occasioning ABH includes 1x family (FV) violence choke Choke 2: 25 against same months’ 1x using carriage service to menace complainant, subject imprisonment, to bail in relation to discounted from that offence at time of 30 months During an argument, the offender pinned present offending the victim against a wall and held his fingers across her throat, so that she could not Total sentence: breathe. 48 months’ Second choke (rolled up count) occurred in imprisonment. similar circumstances and involved a threat to kill her child if she did not return in 10 minutes. NPP 28 months. Subsequent conduct and threats to have the victim retract her statement. The offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offences. DPP v Peric Charges: Ealy plea of guilty to Choke: 18 (No 3) [2022] the choke and months’ 1x assault occasioning ABH ACTSC 387 assault. imprisonment 1x choke Bugmy principles 1x common assault applied. Refshauge AJ Total sentence: Good employment 3 years’ record imprisonment and Offender and the victim had been in a a Drug and relationship for several years before 2021. No mental health Alcohol issues While driving, the offender leant over and Treatment Order. struck the victim to the face with his fist, Drug and alcohol resulting in bruising. issues with limited treatment On a second occasion, during an argument, the offender pushed the victim from behind 16 offences on his to the ground. Whilst she was on the floor, records, including Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence he straddled her and put his hands around prior convictions her neck. She was unable to breathe and against the same lasted for around 10 seconds. victim. Hospital attendance recorded neck injuries.

R v Day (No 2) Charges: Drug and alcohol Choke 1: 1 year [2022] ACTSC abuse history and three months’ 2x choke 352 imprisonment Disadvantaged 1x threat to kill upbringing 1x contravene FVO Kennett J Consistent Choke 2: 2 years 1x damage property employment history and 6 months’ imprisonment Significant criminal Sentence history including FV affirmed on The offender and the victim were in a offences appeal: relationship. On one night, the offender Total sentence: pushed the victim off the mattress she was 4 years and 6 lying on and placed both hands on her neck. months’ Day v R [2023] The victim could still breath. imprisonment. ACTCA 39 The offender later told the victim to leave. As the victim was leaving, the offender NPP 2 years 10 grabbed the victim to stop her. The victim McCallum CJ, months. managed to get outside. The offender Loukas-grabbed the victim by the neck to try and Karlsson and pull her back to the house. The offender told Abraham JJ the victim “you are dead… We’re both going to die tonight.”

DPP v Charges: Generally Choke 1: 18 Padreny unremarkable months’ 2x choke [2024] ACTCA childhood imprisonment, 4 8x other violence offences discounted from Potential undiagnosed 21 months. 4x damage property psychiatric issues Loukas- Criminal history Karlsson, including DV Choke 2: 12 All offences were committed on or in the McWilliam and months’ presence of the victim, whom the offender Drug and alcohol Abraham JJ imprisonment, was in an intimate relationship with. The abuse history discounted from offending occurred on several occasions. 14 months. Sentences The first choke offence involved the were offender holding the victim against the wall increased on with his hand until she felt she would fall appeal: unconscious. The offender then let the victim go. The offender then became angry when the victim would not look at him, and DPP v grabbed her again by the throat and pushed Padreny her to the ground. Case Name Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence [2023] ACTSC The second choke offence was on another 286 occasion. The victim and the offender were arguing, and the offender began punching the victim. The offender pushed the victim Refshauge AJ onto the bed and forced her face into the mattress. The victim could not breathe. DPP v Laic Charges: Minor criminal history For each choke [2025] ACTSC count, 11 months 1x aggravated common assault (FV) Positive upbringing 365 and 15 days’ 2x aggravated choke (FV) Unaddressed illicit imprisonment and substance use and a $5,000 fine. 1x aggravated threat to inflict GBH (FV) Mossop J mental health issues Total sentence: The victim and the offender were in an 1 year, 10 months intimate relationship. After an argument, the and 15 days’ offender engaged in several acts of violence imprisonment. against the victim. The first choke involved the offender putting one or both hands Sentences of around the victim’s neck and pushing her imprisonment around the house. The victim had difficulty imposed to be breathing and thought the offender was served by way of going to kill her. Later, the offender pushed ICO, with the victim into a wall and strangled her with additional both hands. condition of 100 hours of community service.