R v Boujandy - [2022] NSWDC 496 - NSWDC 2022 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWDC

R v Boujandy

[2022] NSWDC 496

District Court of NSW|2022-09-05

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

District Court of NSW

Decision date

2022-09-05

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (113 paragraphs)

[1]

Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Duffy Law Group (Defendant) File Number(s): 2019/372995 2019/269086 2019/256031

[2]

Judgment

The defendant is prosecuted in this Special Hearing in accordance with orders made 15 August 2021 in relation to 28 counts in the Indictment dated 5 September 2022, plus 20 charges, before the Court pursuant to section 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (CP Act) certificates. If at the conclusion of this special hearing I find the on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed any indictable offence, I am to determine whether or not it is appropriate in the circumstances to order that any back up and related section 166 charge or charges be dismissed; and if not dismissed, then to deal with any back up and related charge in accordance with Part 3 of the Act: s 167(1). If at the conclusion of this special hearing the defendant were to be found to be not guilty of any indictable offence, I would be required to deal with any back up and related charge or charges in accordance with Part 3 of the Act: s 167 (1A).
A determination has been made that pursuant to section 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (MHCIFP Act), the defendant is unfit to be tried. In this special hearing, before Judge alone, and in accordance with the agreement of the parties, evidence in the relevant indictable offences and additional evidence of the section 166 matters has been received. Mindful of the orderly conduct of the trial of all charges, in my opinion that was an appropriate and efficient course.

[3]

Overview

The Crown case is that the subject matter of each of the 48 charges making up the counts in the Indictment and the section 166 matters concerns the defendant's assault upon and/or intimidation of his wife Pauline Boujandy or one or other of their five children as well as his son-in-law Michael Aquilina during the almost 30 years they cohabited as a married couple, and that he unlawfully possessed a rifle, ammunition and other prohibited weapons. There is no real contest to the prohibited weapons charges which concern the rifle, ammunition and a taser of the appearance of a mobile phone as well as nunchaku.
The defendant and the first complainant Pauline Boujandy married on 1 July 1990, having known each other about 10 years. He was then about 34 years of age and she was about 24 years of age. They have five children. Each of the children is also a complaint. In order of birth, their children are: 1. Sally, who is now 30 years of age; 2. Mary-Anne, who is now 27 years of age; 3. Sara- Jane, who is now 20 years of age; 4. Peter, who is now 19 years of age; and 5. Ann-Marie, who is now 16 years of age.
Generally in the evidence each complainant was referred to by first name. Witnesses often referred to those children of hyphenated first name, by the first of those names. For efficiency, and meaning no disrespect, I will adopt that course.
The defendant and Pauline remain married but are separated and have lived apart since these allegations were first made to police on 15 August 2019. Pauline said that it would be against her moral code to divorce: T 50. 30 - 31.
Sally married Michael Aquilina on 7 May 2017. He is also a complainant. Sally and Michael lived in the Boujandy family home from marriage until October 2017 when they moved into a home which they had purchased together.
The Boujandy family lived at 91 Pitt Street Merrylands, then from 20 May 2017 at 101 Beechwood Avenue Greystanes, Sydney, over the period relevant to these proceedings. I will refer to these two homes as "Pitt Street" and "Beechwood Avenue", respectively.
On opening, I was informed that the defence (except for the weapons matters) would be that the evidence of witnesses in the prosecution case was fabricated. This would mean that each of the defendant's long-term wife Pauline, his children and his son-in-law gave untruthful evidence.
During discussions on 27 August 2019 between the defendant, Dianne, his sister and Tony, his nephew, the defendant denied assaulting any member of his family save for that he admitted having hit Sally on one occasion. I informed counsel of my observation that the defendant remained seated throughout the recording, spoke without shouting and did not admit anything with the exception of the above: T 292. 40 - 293. 13. Those discussions were recorded without his knowledge or consent. They and transcription of portions spoken in Arabic, were admitted into evidence without objection: Exhibit A, Tabs: 20 A, 20 B and 20 C.
During cross examination, the complainants, acknowledged their smiling participation in family Santa Claus Christmas photographs between 1993 and 2018 (Exhibit 1) and identified their handwriting in Fathers' Day and Birthday Day card messages, expressing endearment, respect and love, to the defendant.

[4]

Counts and other Charges (S 166)

Count 1 - between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Sally - s 61 Crimes act 1900.
Count 2 - between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
Count 3 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010 at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 4 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Sally - s 61 Crimes Act 1900
Count 5 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did threaten to use an offensive instrument, namely a shaver, with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation - s 33B(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900
Count 6 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Sally with intent to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 7 - on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 8 - on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Mary with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 9 - on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Pauline - s 61 Crimes Act 1900
Count 10 - between 31 December 2013 and 1 January 2015, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sara intending that she fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 11 - on 27 July 2014, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, use an offensive instrument, namely a screwdriver, with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation - s 33B (1)(a) Crimes Act 1900;
Count 12 - on 27 July 2014, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Pauline occasioning actual bodily harm to her - s 59 (1) Crimes Act 1900
Count 13 - on 27 July 2014, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her physical or mental harm - s 13 (1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 14 - on 19 August 2015, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 15 - On 16 August 2016, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did use an offensive weapon, namely a knife with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation - s 33B(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900;
Count 16 - On 16 August 2016, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 17 - On 16 August 2016, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Pauline - s 61 Crimes Act 1900
Count 18 - On 27 October 2017, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did assault Pauline occasioning actual bodily harm to her - s 59(1) Crimes Act 1900
Count 19 - Between 31 December 2017 and 1 January 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007;
Count 20 - Between 31 December 2018 and 1 February 2019 at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Peter intending to cause him to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 21 - between 31 May 2019 and 1 July 2019 at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Peter intending him to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 22 - On 29 July 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 23 - On 29 July 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did assault Pauline - s 61 Crimes Act 1900
Count 24 - On 29 July 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Mary with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 25 - On 15 August 2019, in Greystanes and Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Pauline - s 61 Crimes Act 1900;
Count 26 - On 15 August 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Pauline with the intention of causing her to fear physical and mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Count 27 - On 15 August 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did possess a prohibited firearm namely a Ruger M-14 Semi Automatic Rifle, not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit - s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996
Count 28 - On 15 August 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did possess a firearm namely a Ruger M-14 Semi Automatic Rifle being a prohibited firearm that was not registered - s 36(1) Firearms Act 1996

[26]

Judge Alone Trial

As a special hearing, the trial is conducted as closely as possible to a jury trial (s 56(1) (the MHCIFP Act)) and I am to determine alone whether the defendant, on the limited evidence available, committed the offence charged or is not guilty: Section 133(2) CP Act. I am compelled to direct myself and am bound by the following directions of law, as if I were a jury. However, section 133 does not require me to state all the matters which would have to be stated to a jury, or even all the matters which I have taken into account in determining my verdicts.
This being a special hearing and the defendant not having been mentally or cognitively impaired at the time of the alleged offending, the available verdicts comprise (s 59(1) MHCIFP Act): 1. not guilty; and 2. on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged.
There are no statutory alternative charges for consideration.
The fact that a defendant has been found unfit to be tried for an offence is presumed not to be an impediment to the persons representation. Mr Boujandy was represented by Ms Carr of Counsel and her instructing attorney Mr Johnson.
A special hearing must not prejudice the defendant anymore than his unfitness already may do. His legal representation, which he must have but in this hearing did have; may raise, on his behalf any defences a fit person could raise in a normal trial. The defendant may or may not give evidence.
At a special hearing the defendant is taken to have pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, unlike in a normal trial in which an accused may enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty. I repeat, because of the defendant's competence at the time of offending a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is not available. Ultimately the question for me to answer in relation to each Count and Charge before the Court pursuant to s 166 of the CP Act is whether or not on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged at the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt: s 54 MHCIFP Act.
A verdict that on the limited evidence available the defendant committed an offence charged constitutes a qualified finding of guilt and does not constitute a basis in law for a conviction for the offence to which the finding relates: s 62(a) MHCIFP Act.
I am aware of the consequences of a qualified finding of guilt, on the limited evidence available, pursuant to ss 63 - 68 of the MHCIFP Act.
It is the prosecution's burden to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of each element of each count and s 166 charge. Accordingly I must comply with all principles of law applying to my treatment of the evidence and in my reaching factual findings by which I arrive at my verdicts. I must heed all of the warnings a jury would have been given had it been empanelled. The defendant has no onus of proving anything. I do not act on suspicion. I do not act on what I believe might probably be the case. I must consider the evidence impartially. If the prosecution fails to meet that high onus, the defendant must have the benefit of any reasonable doubt and I must return a verdict of not guilty.
There is no dispute as to the elements of each charge, as set out in this judgment (MFI 7).

[29]

Complaint Direction

The parties require that I remind myself of the "Complaint Evidence" direction (MFI 14). Neither party made submissions as to the content of that direction in relation to the evidence in this case.
In the circumstances of witnesses being members of the defendant's family and those such as Sally's husband Michael and Mary's boyfriend Vikram, being closely connected with the family, the evidence of what was communicated between them from time to time was part of an ongoing conversation concerning the safety of Pauline and in the circumstances of what they described as the defendant's intimidation and assaults. Ms Helou's evidence, by witness statement admitted without objection (Exhibit N), was of observation of bruising to Sara's body and not of complaints against the defendant made by Sara to her. The evidence of Ms Dakoda Garner, by witness statement tendered without objection (Exhibit A tab 19) described Sally, in a state of fear and emotional upset when, in March 2018, Sally informed her that the defendant was abusive, did not approve of Michael's marriage to Sally and that the defendant had hurt his family in the past including having held a screwdriver to the throat of Pauline, having told Pauline that he would kill her and of having bashed Sally in the shower when she was 15 or 16 years of age. Sally gave direct evidence of having been witness to each of those events. Accordingly, the evidence of Ms Garner was admissible pursuant to s 66(2) of the Evidence Act as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Generally, each of the witnesses, when describing complaints made to them by others, was speaking of something they having seen, heard or otherwise perceived of the event and the person making the representation, was called and gave evidence. Accordingly, their evidence of complaints was also admissible pursuant to s 66(2) of the Evidence Act.
However, in my opinion, it is not necessary to closely analyse every complaint made and whether or not it strictly falls within the provisions of s 66 of the Evidence Act; nor, is it necessary for me to consider limitation of evidence so lead pursuant to the provisions of s 136 of the Evidence Act. My reasons for approaching the evidence in this way, whilst mindful of the usual Complaint Evidence direction, is that ultimately in my discernment of the evidence, and as I offered to Counsel for the parties during closing oral submissions, I found each of the witnesses Pauline, Sally, Mary, Sara, Ann, Peter and Michael to be witnesses of truth doing the best they could to give reliable evidence on the basis of recollection. The defence ultimately in closing submissions expressly made no challenge to the credibility of the witnesses. For these reasons, it seems to me that the Complaint direction is not of great significance in this case.
Neither party made submissions concerning delay in the bringing of these allegations to police. To refrain from doing so, was in my opinion appropriate because the overwhelming evidence of the witnesses was of their fear of reprisal, including that the defendant might intimidate, hurt or even kill them should they speak to persons outside of the family of the subject matter of the allegations. Of the many examples of witnesses giving evidence to this affect, the defendant informing his children not to report to ambulance officers the reasons for Pauline's attempted suicide, is a prominent example. Sally's reluctance to bring forward the allegations to authorities for fear of the risk that the defendant might hurt her is effectively corroborated by the witness statement evidence of Ms Garner. The recorded evidence Exhibits H, J and K are direct evidence including what are real examples of the defendant's threats and abuse such as his threat heard in Exhibit H, that if Sara were to speak to police, he would "send" her "head into the wall". In the circumstances, that the complaints were not advanced at an earlier time, is well explained.

[31]

Context Evidence

In addition to the evidence lead by the Crown specifically on the counts in the indictment and the charges before me pursuant to s 166 CP Act, the Crown lead evidence of other acts of alleged misconduct by the defendant towards each complainant. For the sake of convenience, I collected much of that evidence under the separate heading Fear/Context Evidence. I bear in mind that the context evidence was admitted solely for placing the evidence towards proof of the specific acts alleged in each count and s 166 charge into a realistic and intelligible context. That evidence, easily dispels any wonder or concern I might have had about the likelihood of what would otherwise be 48 apparently isolated acts occurring suddenly without any reason or any circumstances to link them in any way. That evidence is overwhelmingly convincing of an ongoing history of the defendant's conduct toward the complainants including why they did not complain about what was done to them closer to the occasion of the specific acts alleged in each of the counts and charges.
I warn myself that the context evidence was not lead as establishing a tendency on the part of the defendant to commit offences of the type prosecuted in each Count and Charge. That evidence does not make it more likely that the defendant committed any of the offences. The evidence has the very limited purpose and it cannot be used as evidence of the particular allegations contained in the counts and charges toward proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, the context evidence cannot be substituted for the evidence of the specific acts the subject of the counts and charges. I am to consider my verdict in relation to each of those specific allegations, not on the basis of a course of misconduct. I am concerned only with the particular and precise occasion alleged in each Count and other Charge. The defendant cannot be punished for other acts attributed to him by finding him, on the limited evidence available, to have committed any Count or other Charge.

[32]

Mahmood Direction

Near the commencement of the Special Hearing Counsel for the defendant sought a direction in accordance with Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397 at [27]. In defence closing written submissions (MFI 17 at pg 4) the direction sought was in the following terms: …where a witness who might have been expected to be called and to give evidence on a matter is not called by the prosecution, the question is not whether the jury may properly reach conclusions about issues of fact but whether, in the circumstances, they should entertain a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused
The submission put was that the Crown had not called Michael's parents and Mr Khoudair, whose statement was admitted without objection, despite his refusal to give oral evidence. The Court was also informed by the Crown, without objection from the defence, that the defendant's sister Dianne and nephew Tony had been unwilling to provide statements or further evidence. They were participants in the recording of a discussion after his arrest in which the defendant conceding having hit Sally, once at home, when he marked her body, following her taking a day off from school when she went to MacDonald's just following her trial Higher School Certificate Exams.
The evidence of S.C. Hepburn, (statement made 26 November 2020 Exhibit A tab 4; T 297. 35 - 298. 14) explained his attempts, as Officer In Charge, to obtain evidence from Dianne and Tony. At transcript 299. 8 - 50 he explained steps he took toward obtaining a statement from Detective Sergeant Kylie Whiting but that in the end no investigating officer made a direct attempt to obtain a statement from her. At transcript 299. 39 - 50 that Michaels parents, named Michael Srn and Ann Aquilina, were not prepared to provide statements when asked. At transcript 300. 1 - 12 S.C. Hepburn explained that after speaking with Mr Stephen Khoudair's mother, he being a young person, his request for a witness statement to be provided, was initially declined.
In Mahmood v Western Australia, the plurality explained at [27] - [29] that the question of whether or not a failure by the prosecution to call evidence, should in the circumstances be cause to entertain a reasonable doubt about the guilt of an accused, must also contemplate the accused's opportunity in regard to that evidence in the trial. In the present case, the evidence of S.C. Hepburn easily satisfies any concern which might otherwise been had of a conscious or even accidental failure by the prosecution to have brought to the Special Hearing evidence which might have been exculpatory or otherwise a failure to fairly present the prosecution case. The defence did not advance a submission identifying any specific prejudice. In addition, in my view, if any concern for the defendant's opportunity in regard to that evidence existed, it is relieved given the witnesses gave direct evidence of events and Counsel for the defendant expressly does not put in issue their credibility (email from Defence Counsel 14 September 2022 to my Associate contained in MFI #14 and closing oral submissions).

[35]

presentation of complainant witnesses

Pauline remained composed throughout her evidence, given from a remote place. Her precision of answering questions in chief and, in particular her deliberate reference of events to a chronological course, caused me to think that she had prepared what she described of events. Nevertheless, she impressed me as being a highly intelligent woman giving truthful and accurate answers to questions, to the best of her ability and recollection. She remembered that she and her husband, the defendant moved into the Pitt Street home on the long weekend of October 2003 when her son Peter was a young child, having been born on Christmas Day 2002. Generally, when compared to the descriptions in evidence of her children, Pauline's evidence portrayed lower levels of violence and spoken intimidation by the defendant. Pauline did not impress me as a witness seeking revenge.
She described the defendant as being a very fit and large man who exercised daily during their marriage. Peter, who trained with his father including in martial arts, described the defendant at the time of the alleged offences as of 100 kg and the fittest man of his age he had met. In each of the Pitt Street and Beechwood Avenue homes the garage was fitted out with training equipment used by the defendant and by their children, particularly Peter. In addition the defendant attended external, commercial gymnasiums. The defendant practised martial arts. Peter also studied kung fu. The training equipment included several ceremonial/performance swords which were used in training routines. Pauline said that one of the swords was sharp.
Sally having achieved her tertiary degrees in Law and Business, is presently employed at the Department of Education as a Case Manager. She provided statements to police and on 16 August 2019 participated in the recording of a DVEC. That DVEC has been lost due to the inadvertent destruction of the police mobile phone on which it was recorded. Evidence of S.C. Hepburn explained that loss.
Sally was an impressive witness. Whilst at times becoming visibly distressed when recounting the allegations of abuse of members of her family, in particular her mother, by the defendant; nevertheless, the manner in which she gave her evidence did not cause me to have concern that she was exaggerating or seeking revenge against the defendant. She is a tertiary educated and highly intelligent woman. She retained a detailed recollection. Minor inconsistencies between her evidence and that of her mother or siblings showed that there was no collusion between them. I accept her as a witness of truth and accuracy.
The statement of Ms Dakoda Garner made 4 June 2020 (Exhibit A tab 19) was read without objection. Ms Garner was not called to give evidence. She described complaints by Sally made to her in March 2018, of the defendant having hurt Sally in the past, held a screwdriver to Pauline's throat and threatened to kill her and having bashed Sally in the shower when she was 15 or 16 years of age.
Michael, Sally's husband presented as a careful witness who truthfully answered questions according to the best of his recollection. Michael is employed by the Department of Education in the Complex Case Team. He first met Sally in 2012. He said that from 7 May 2013 he was "officially" Sally's boyfriend but, even before that date, it was common for him to visit the Boujandy family at the Pitt Street home.
At the time she gave her evidence, Mary was undertaking legal practice training having completed degrees in Law and Social Science. She was a conscientious witness who displayed a high level of detail of recall in the giving of her evidence. I did get the impression from her sometimes looking down and her pausing that she was trying to recall exactly a memorised chronology. I gained the impression from her presentation that she was a well prepared witness. I did not gain the impression that she was untruthful. I considered her to be doing her best to give the most accurate answers she could, having since August 2019 been aware that this day of giving her evidence in a court room would come. I considered her to give frank evidence of actual recall of events with concentrated precision.
Sara also presented as a witness attempting to give the best and most accurate evidence she could according to her recollection. The statement of Ms Katrina Helou, 30 August 2022 (Exhibit N) was read without objection. Ms Helou was not called to give oral evidence. She described having seen bruises on Sara's body. When as a fellow pupil she saw Sara's body during P.E. at school. In the change rooms, she saw the bruising on her legs, arms, chest and stomach. She recalled that the bruise on Sara's chest was the "size of a fist". When she asked Sara what had happened, Sara would tell her she had fallen or bumped into something. Ms Helou first saw bruises on Sara's body mainly during P.E classes between 2013 and 2015. Ms Helou recalled that when she visited Sara at the Pitt Street home, she observed the defendant checking who was calling. When Pauline received a call, he would make her put it on loud speaker.
Ann being the youngest of the siblings who gave evidence, naturally retained the least sophisticated recollection. She was a patently honest witness who impressed as attempting to be as accurate as she truthfully could on the basis of her recollection. An example of this was when the Crown asked her about a 2014 event. Her evidence was (T 238. 20 - 29): Q. I want to take you back to 2014. Do you remember an event occurring that year? A. I do recall an event occurring in that year that is in my statement, but I don't remember at this time, exactly. Q. Okay. You may not be able to answer this. Do you know who bought Peter's underwear for him? A. Yes. It was my mother and father, they went shopping for my brother's underwear.
Ann's answer revealed her want to be accurate. To the best of her recollection at the moment she was asked that question, she recalled that there was some event in 2014 but truthfully answered that it was not clear to her which event it was. The following question having introduced the topic of Peter's underwear, Ann commenced to provide answers on the basis of her recollection of the event, identified by that subject matter. Her evidence of that event in 2014 (Count 10), on the purchase of the underwear for Peter, was consistent with other evidence of that event.
Peter was studying youth work at the time that he gave evidence. He was the last of the complainant witnesses and members of the family called to give evidence. He impressed as a witness giving truthful and accurate answers to the best of his personal recollection. As a 19 year old in Court, Peter gave his height as 6 foot 2 inches. In cross examination he said that he had experienced a growth spirt over the preceding 12 months. He gave his height at age 16 years (2019) at 5 foot 10 inches to 5 foot 11 inches (approximately 180 cms). At age 16 he continued training in martial arts and fitness. He described his having attempted to stand up against the defendant to protect his mother and siblings as he matured.

[36]

Sequence 21 - assault - Sally - defendant punched Sally on the face multiple times - s 166 certificate

Pauline said that in 2006 she and the defendant drove with all five children to the Blue Mountains. They were at the Three Sisters Look Out when Sally whilst taking photographs with a disposable camera was seen speaking with a man. In other evidence he was described as middle aged. Sally was in year eight at school. Pauline said that when the defendant saw that, he called the family back to the car, berated Sally that speaking to the man was the wrong thing to do and whilst they were getting into the car he started punching Sally on face and on the shoulders. Pauline was loading the pram which contained Ann who was then six months of age. She does not recall how many times the defendant punched Sally. The defendant grabbed a bag of sweets which had been purchased on the drive up and threw them away.
Sally's evidence of this Sequence 21 event was generally consistent with the evidence given by Pauline. She provided the greater detail that the middle-aged man said to her "that's a nice camera" to which Sally responded "it's disposable". She also pointed to her family so that he knew that she was not alone. She was about 14 years of age.
As this conversation occurred Sally noticed the defendant's face. She said that his teeth were clenched and eyes were bulging. She knew she was in trouble. On his direction, they all went to the car and as they did so, the defendant was berating her of wanting to have sex with the man and calling her "slut". It was as Sally entered the car that the defendant threw the sweets away and he punched her in the face with a closed fist. When she was sitting on something she described as "the folding chair in the car that we had at the time" (the vehicle was of a people mover style) the defendant hit her again on the face with a closed fist and he continued to yell at her that she wanted to sleep with the man. The defendant hit her on both sides of her face with a closed fist. Sally said that the defendant punched her in that way more than twice, and that her attempts to explain that she did not want to sleep with the man of the defendant's age only made the defendant become more angry: T 59. 9 - 39.
When they arrived at the Pitt Street home, and Sally was near the front door, the defendant was "growling" at her. He continued to accuse her of wanting to sleep with the man and he again struck her. Sally gave the following evidence of that time (at T 59. 49 - 50): Q. Closed fist? Open fist? Open hand? Can you recall? A. I cannot recall, sorry.
Plainly had Sally been exaggerating her evidence or seeking revenge against her father, the defendant, in some way, she could have answered that the punch at the house door was closed fist. She remembered standing near the wall which attached to the door frame, fearful that the defendant was going to slam her head into the wall "because I'd seen him do that in the past, to my mum. I was conscious of that": T 60. 5.
Mary's evidence of Sally being punched by her father when visiting the Three Sisters lookout at the Blue Mountains was consistent with the evidence of Pauline and Sally. She did not recall where in the Blue Mountains it occurred but she recalled there were a lot of tourists and people taking photos. She thought it was possibly at the Three Sisters location. Mary was then in year 5. She recalled that the defendant became angry at the way that Sally had been talking to an older man when using her disposable camera. She recalled that when getting in the car she saw the defendant punching Sally in the face numerous times with a closed fist and she recalled the defendant throwing the sweets out of the car.

[37]

Count 1: between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Sally-section 61 Crimes act 1900.

Pauline was then asked about an incident in 2008. This allegation is the subject of Count 1: between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Sally-section 61 Crimes act 1900.
Pauline said that the defendant became angry because Sally asked him, whilst they were in the presence of her friend Laura, for permission to go to Laura's house to study Drama. Sally and Laura were then attending year 10, in the last year of their high school Drama subject. Pauline said that although the defendant agreed, he was upset because Sally had asked him in front of Laura, whilst in car, and not "to the side", meaning privately. She said that the defendant's face showed that he was upset. He insisted and Pauline complied, that she also attend Laura's house to keep watch. On the return of Pauline and Sally to the Pitt Street home, the defendant said that he was upset also because Laura had an older brother in the house.
The alleged offence took place at home when Sally had gone to a bathroom for a shower. She was then 16 years of age. Pauline said the defendant broke the bathroom door lock by smashing it open and entered the bathroom. When Pauline heard screaming she ran into the bathroom and saw Sally in the shower with the curtain wrapped around herself and the water running. Her evidence was that the defendant was punching Sally and that he pushed her head into the wall whilst calling her "slut" and saying "I'm going to kill you". The defendant said to Pauline "get out or I'll cut her up". These statements by the defendant are the subject of Count 2: between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm: section 13 (1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. This caused Pauline to leave the bathroom whilst asking the defendant to stop. When the defendant did leave the bathroom he pushed Sarah who was standing in the vicinity of the doorway, into the wall of the corridor.
There is no charge, the subject of which, is the defendant pushing or throwing Sara into the wall of the corridor.
Sally gave consistent but not identical evidence to Pauline in relation to the Count 1 offence. She said that in addition to the defendant being angry with her, because she had asked him if she could go to Laura's house for study whilst in the presence of Laura, he also accused her of wanting to go to Laura's house not to study but to sleep with her older brother. That brother was 10 years older than Sally and Laura. Then things died down and she thought that she was okay to go and have a shower. Inconsistently with the recollection of Pauline, Sally said that she had not turned the water on when the bathroom door flung open. She had locked it. She remembered the door hitting against the frame of the shower and the defendant barging in. He pulled the shower curtain down, ripping it off the hooks. Sally was a 16 year old girl standing in front of her father naked. She was embarrassed and tried to cover her body with the shower curtain. At this point in her evidence (T 60. 45) Sally was so upset that I directed a short adjournment in order for her to have an opportunity to compose herself. On recommencement, Sally gave the following evidence: T 61. 36 - 62. 4. Q. Now what happened after that? A. I grabbed the shower curtain to try and cover myself. But he grabbed my head with both hands and was yelling at me about the incident earlier that day where he believed that I didn't want to go to my friend's house to study but in fact to sleep with her brother. And slammed my head on - against the tiles in the shower, the - the wall that's tiled. He proceeded to punch me in the face multiple times while yelling at me. He pulled my hair. I was not able to block any of the punches..(not transcribable)..shower curtain up to cover my body and I was just begging him, like, "Dad, please let me put on some clothes and then I'll come out." But he was just yelling at me and would not listen to anything I was saying. I remember mum coming behind him. I don't know, she was saying something to him, trying to - it looked like she was trying to pull him away. And then he told her to get the eff out otherwise he was going to kill me, that he was going to cut me up and, you know? So I know that she had to leave the room and he continued. I - I don't even know for how long, until eventually thankfully he stopped.
Mary's evidence of this event commenced from the return of Pauline, the defendant and Sally from Laura's house. Her evidence is consistent with the evidence of Pauline and Sally. Including the defendant arguing with Sally, calming down, and then Sally going to a shower, the defendant banging the door to break the lock to the bathroom and screaming. She heard the noise of the defendant ripping the shower curtain down and she saw the defendant punching Sally in the face and slamming Sally's head into the wall. She described herself and her siblings begging the defendant to stop. The balance of her evidence concerning Pauline entering the bathroom, the defendant sending her out, noises and the closed door and then Pauline re-entering the bathroom and the defendant coming to the hallway are all consistent with the evidence of Pauline and Sally. She recalled that when the defendant came to the hallway he grabbed Sara and threw her whole body into the wall. Sara was then in primary school and about 6 years of age. She recalled her sister Sally being punched in the bathroom saying to the defendant "stop; stop" and asking that he let her put clothes on because she was naked.
Sara's evidence of this event is consistent with that of Pauline, Sally and Mary. She recalled how angry the defendant was when they got home after the defendant picked up Pauline and Sally from Laura's house. She recalled the defendant screaming and banging down the door when Sally was in the shower, that Sally was naked and that the defendant hit her with a closed fist and slammed her head into the shower wall. She recalled Sally trying to cover herself with the shower curtain and that they were all screaming at the defendant to stop. She was 7 years old at the time. She said that when the defendant came out of the door he slammed her head and shoulders into the wall of the corridor. During examination in chief she said that she did not consent to the defendant doing that to her.
Pauline then gave evidence of an event in 2010, at about the time of Sally's year 12 trial High School Certificate exams, when Sally skipped school to attend McDonald's with two friends. One friend was male and the other female. The event which ensured is the subject of four counts.

[39]

Count 4 between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Sally-section 61 Crimes Act 1900.

Having been notified of Sally's absence by the school, the defendant with Pauline drove to the McDonald's store to retrieve her. They then continued to the school to pick up Mary.
Pauline went into the school to retrieve Mary. This left Sally and the defendant at the car. When she returned the defendant was hitting Sally with an open hand and also with a closed fist. Pauline and Mary tried to stop the defendant but he continued to hit Sally until he chose to stop. Whilst driving to pick up the younger children from their school the defendant said to Sally "I'm going to kill you".
Again Sally's evidence was consistent with that of Pauline in relation to both of the Count 3 and Count 4 events and again Sally gave a more detailed description. She said that when Pauline left the car to retrieve Mary, the defendant got out of his front drivers seat and opened the side sliding door to her. She was sitting in the back row of the (people transporter type) car and he started yelling at her about a lady from MacDonald's having told him that Sally had entered a car with a bunch of boys. Sally denied that happened. The defendant lent into the car, yelling at her. Sally lent forward trying to explain that she was just with her friends at MacDonald's. At that point the defendant punched her in the side of her face with a closed fist. She gave the following further description of the assault (T 63. 29 - 31) "I flinched back and then he told me not to flinch and to come forward and if I move back, he was going to kill me. So, I had to hold my face forward while he leant in from the side of the car to punch me on both sides of my face."
Sally was obviously distressed when she gave this evidence. The manner in which she gave it and the description itself, struck me as accurately based in an emotionally most painful recollection. She continued to say that the defendant called her a "slut" and told her not to look at him. Because she could not look at him she could not anticipate the punches as they came toward her. She felt "disgusting" physically and emotionally hurt. She described having to fight the urge to move back in order to protect herself from the punches. She remembered that the defendant was still at the side door punching her when Pauline returned to the car with Mary. That evidence necessarily infers, at the least, that the assault lasted for minutes. That part of evidence also corroborates that Pauline witnessed the punching.
Mary said that she was at the same school as Sally and the evidence she gave of her recollection of this event is consistent with the evidence of Pauline and Sally. She recalled that when she was picked up at school Pauline told her that the defendant was angry and when they reached the car, the defendant was outside of the car, where she saw his body lunge into the car. On seeing that she and Pauline ran to the car where she said she saw Sally to be shaking and crying. Mary did not give evidence of the defendant punching Sally at the car.

[41]

Count 6 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Sally with intent to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Sally said that after having returned to the Pitt Street home from MacDonald's and the school the defendant told Sally to sit on the couch and that he was going to deal with her. He told Pauline and the children to get out of the house and go to the backyard. Sally said she was "really scared because I thought he was going to kill me" (T 65. 13). The defendant went away for a moment but returned with an electric shaving razor which he waved in front of Sally's face whilst yelling at her, calling her a "slut" for jumping in the car with the boys which event had not actually happened. When Sally again tried to tell the defendant that it had not happened, he held the razor between her eye and her hairline and near to her eye. Sally said she was shaking because she was so scared. The defendant threatened to shave her hair off so that no boys would look at her. Sally was then 18 years of age.
Mary remembered seeing the defendant punch Sally with closed fists in the face when they were in the lounge room of the Pitt Street home and that he made her take her younger siblings into the backyard. When in the backyard she stood at the door (referred to as the "flyscreen") and she could hear her sister crying and could hear the hitting noises and could hear Pauline saying "stop, please stop". She was scared for Sally so at some point she ran inside where she saw Sally sitting on the couch and the defendant standing over her. She saw he had an electric shaver turned on and positioned "right near her eye": T 166. 9. It was at that time the defendant said to Sally "I'm going to shave your head off you fucking slut, and kill you."
Sally was unable to return to school anytime that week because of the bruising and swelling to her face. She described it as "puffy, greenish in spots" and that it really hurt to touch as well as being visibly swollen. The defendant said that he did not want her to go to school because he did not want others to know what had happened.

[44]

Count 9 - on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Pauline - s 61 Crimes Act 1900

Sally recalled that for the defendant's birthday on the 22nd of November 2010 the family had baked him a cake which they presented to him on a silver tray. She recalled the effort in creating the cake and that it had cream and strawberries. They sang Happy Birthday. She said that the defendant was not happy that they had made the cake rather than buying one.
At the time the defendant was the only licenced motor vehicle driver in the family. Pauline has never held a driver's licence. Pauline said that the defendant would not let her. When asked during evidence in chief how he stopped her; she simply stated that he just drove whenever they went out, even if they drove to go shopping although the defendant did the grocery shopping. Whenever the children were to be taken out or picked up, the defendant drove. Pauline possessed a bankcard in her name but the defendant held it. The defendant gave her the estimated cash needed for purchases. On 22 November 2019 Sally was on her learner's permit. So no one in the family other than the defendant himself could drive to the shop to buy him a cake.
Sally said that the family were disheartened when he said words to the effect of "What, aren't I worth a proper cake, this is the shit you've given me?": T 83. 50. The defendant then took Pauline to the office and Sally could heard arguing. She said that she and her siblings, would listen when they were arguing because of concern that the defendant would physically attack Pauline: T 84. 10. On this occasion Sally heard the argument to be about the defendant's perennial allegation of Pauline's alleged infidelity.
Sally said that when the defendants voice became intense and aggressive she and Mary went into the office. Sally said "Dad, please stop". The defendant replied, "Get the fuck out or I'll shoot you". She did not want to anger the defendant more because she was aware that the rifle was in that room in the Jesus cupboard. She and Mary left the office.
Mary's recollection of this event was consistent with the evidence of Sally as to the complaint that they had not bought him a cake and Pauline and the defendant going into the office. She then heard what she called "hitting" and ran with Sally into the room. She recalls that the defendant was holding Pauline by both shoulders and that he said "get the fuck out or else I will shoot you". Like Sally, Mary said that she left being mindful that guns were in the room.

[46]

Pauline's attempted suicide

On 23 January 2014 Pauline attempted suicide at the Pitt Street home. She and the defendant had been arguing whilst sitting outside in the backyard. Their children were viewing them from a window of the house because of their concern to protect Pauline from the defendant. Pauline said that she got to the point where she thought "enough is enough". She went into her bedroom and obtained a bottle Valium, asked Sally to get her a glass of water whilst not revealing to Sally the purpose, went to the bathroom; closed the door and deliberately consumed an overdose of Valium tablets. She returned to the backyard.
Her children noticed her head tilt to the side. There is some inconsistency in the evidence between the childrens' evidence that she then slumped to the ground and the recorded 000 call (Exhibit L) in which she was described by Sally to have been still in a chair and on instruction of the 000 operator, she was placed on the ground. This was not investigated by examination in chief or in cross examination. I therefore make nothing of it. The 000 call recording is otherwise entirely consistent with the evidence of Sally, Peter and Mary as well as the evidence of Pauline that she was unconscious due to the effects of the overdose.
The overwhelming evidence is of Pauline taking the overdose and requiring emergency ambulance assistance. Not surprisingly, Pauline's own evidence was short. She said that she blacked out and "I don't remember anything". She then said that when she awoke the defendant told her to tell the doctors that she had had an argument with her family and was upset with her family: T 35. 49 - 50. Pauline said that she tried to commit suicide because she was so tired of the life she was living with the defendant. Exhibit D is the Westmead Hospital patient health record of the relevant 4 day admission between 23 and 26 January 2014 inclusive.
Sally said that throughout Pauline's lapsing state of consciousness whilst she was sitting in the backyard on the chair, the defendant said words to the effect that Pauline was "just putting it on". That this was his response to Sally's suggestion to him that they call an ambulance. She recalled the defendant saying "she'll just sleep it off. Don't worry". But when the defendant went inside Sally called Michael and asked what to do, given that the defendant had told her not to call an ambulance. On Michael's assurance that she should, Sally dialled 000. When she told the defendant, he "gave the dirtiest look": T 85. 15 - 45. As did each of her siblings, Sally said that whilst Pauline was in hospital, the defendant would not let them see her. Unlike her siblings, Sally said that the defendant did take them "for a couple of minutes" to visit their mother in hospital. Sally recalled that prior to the arrival of the ambulance, the defendant told her and her siblings who were present, that when the ambulance arrived, "…not to say anything". Sally recalls that she heard the defendant saying that to Mary whilst Sally was on the 000 call.
Mary recalled looking through the window "spying" into the backyard at the defendant and Pauline and that she could hear the defendant shouting. She said his knee was shaking. She recalled that Pauline went to the bedroom and took a white container from the cupboard. Mary asked her about it and Pauline answered "nothing". Pauline then entered the bathroom and shut the door. Mary said she had suspicions because the defendant had always told Pauline to kill herself. Pauline returned to the backyard and as Mary looked through the window Mary saw Pauline's head drop to one side. When Mary was outside, Sally talked of calling the ambulance and the defendant told them to go inside but they did not. She said Pauline dropped to the floor from the green plastic chair. Again I note this is not entirely consistent with the 000 call record but it is consistent with the evidence given by Sally. Mary's evidence was consistent with Sally's evidence of the defendant saying that Pauline was only pretending and that it was when he went inside that Sally telephoned the ambulance. Mary added the detail that when he returned outside and saw that Sally was on the phone he marched up to her with a fist and when Mary told the defendant that the ambulance was being called, the defendant said that Sally "should not have fucking called" she also recalled the defendant telling her siblings that they were to tell the ambulance officers that Pauline had become upset because she had argued with her parents and not to say that he and Pauline had argued. Mary said that she agreed because the defendant had always said he would kill himself and all of them if they told third parties and that he would know because of his police and military connections. A detail added by Mary to the evidence of Pauline and Sally, was that she recalled the defendant saying (T 174. 23) "if Peter stresses over this and gets sick, I will kill her", meaning Pauline. At the time, Peter was unwell.
Ann's evidence was consistent with that given by Pauline, Sally and Mary including of Pauline having locked herself in the bathroom and asked Sara for water before going to her bedroom and returning to the bathroom. Ann recalled Sally asking at the bathroom door if Pauline was alright. The defendant called Pauline and Pauline returned from the bathroom to the backyard with the defendant. Ann recalled looking through the blinds and seeing Pauline's head tilt to the side. She recalled Sally running out to see what had happened. She did not recall what happened between then and the ambulance arriving, save for the defendant telling herself and her siblings that they were not to say anything to the ambulance officers. She recalled being very afraid because she was so young and that "no-one really told me what was happening, so all I saw was mum going into the ambulance": T 242. 37. As did her siblings Ann said in evidence that when Pauline was in hospital the defendant would not allow them to go in an visit her (save for the evidence of Sally)
Peter's evidence of this event having occurred on an occasion in January 2014 when the defendant and Pauline were arguing outside, was consistent with the evidence given by Pauline, Sally, Mary and Ann. Peter said that Pauline was in the bathroom for a very long time. Then he heard Sally say that Pauline had tried to kill herself. Peter's evidence was consistent with the evidence of Mary that when Pauline was being wheeled into the ambulance the defendant said to Mary "if Peter gets sick I'm going to kill her" because Peter was stressed. Peter said that at the time he was suffering a thyroglossal cyst which he understood to be stress caused. He said that Pauline was away in hospital for several days and that the defendant did not permit Peter to visit her.
Michael corroborated Sally's evidence of receipt of her call informing him that Pauline had collapsed and his telling her to call someone or he would so that an ambulance would attend. He was working at Woolworths and took leave to attend the Pitt Street home. On his arrival the defendant and Pauline were absent, but the siblings were all shocked and crying. They were scared as to what would eventuate as to Pauline.

[47]

Count 10 - between 31 December 2013 and 1 January 2015 at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sara intending that she fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Sally said that about the time Mary was to start university in 2014, in the kitchen of the Pitt Street home and after Pauline and the defendant had returned from shopping for underwear for Peter, they were arguing. The defendant was accusing Pauline of looking at the male models pictured on the underwear packets. He was saying to her, words to the effect of "you got turned on by looking at the pictures, didn't you?". Pauline assured the defendant that she did not. Sally said that the defendant punched Pauline, pointed his finger in her face and slapped her whilst Mary and Sara were also in the kitchen: T 83. 15 - 20. Mary or Sara called out "Dad stop" and the defendant turned to them and said "Shut the fuck up or I'll cut you up and feed you to the pigs." The defendant continued the argument with Pauline. Afterward, Sally noticed that Pauline's face was swollen.
Mary gave evidence consistent with that of Sally concerning this event of the defendant punching Pauline in the face and shouting at her to accuse her of looking at the male model pictures on the underwear packing after their return from the shops. She recalled herself and her siblings begging the defendant to stop and recalled the defendant saying "I will light her on fire", meaning Pauline: T 173. 1. Sara was crying and begging the defendant to stop and the defendant said to Sara "shut up - I will chop you up and feed you to the pigs": T 173. 5. Mary was very scared for Pauline and for Sara, she said because "I guess, [the defendant] went into a lot of detail as to how he would kill them.": T 173. 9.
Ann's evidence of this event is consistent of that with Sally and of Mary. She recalled that when she was about 8 years old and Peter was about 4 years older, his parents returned from shopping for his underwear. She recalled that when they got home the defendant believed that Pauline had been looking at the male models on the packaging. Consistent with her frank and honest evidence giving, Ann said that she was not in the same room. But she could hear the defendant threaten to light Pauline on fire. She was scared for her mother Pauline's life. She hid the lighters or anything that the defendant could use to hurt Pauline. She thinks Sara might have tried to intervene and she heard the defendant threaten Sara saying he would "feed her to the pigs".

[48]

January 2013 - Sequence 1 - defendant assault Pauline - by slapping her and Sequence 2 - defendant - assault Sara by slapping her after accusing Pauline of looking at male swimmers at the pool; and Sequence 3 - defendant intimidate Sara by saying "if you call the cops, I will slam you head against the wall".

Exhibit C is a statement by Dr Alagan GP concerning her consultation with Pauline on 19 February 2013. The statement was admitted without objection. Dr Alagan was not called to give evidence. Pauline could not recall the date of her attendance upon her GP, Dr Alagan at Merrylands. Dr Alagan wrote that bruises to Pauline's face and right eye were consistent with the history Pauline gave of an event of being robbed that day. The statement records that Pauline presented for consultation with the defendant. Pauline did recall that she attended Dr Alagan, but Pauline could not recall the ailment for which she saw her: T 29. 13. Pauline remembered telling Dr Alagan that she had been robbed by Sudanese at Merrylands, which story was not true. She recalled that she had sustained an injury because the defendant "had bashed me" (T 29. 19) but could not recall what injury it was.
That Pauline conceded that she could not recall what the injury was when she saw Dr Alagan more than 9 years before this special hearing is an instance of her responsibly giving evidence of only those things which she did recall. It is an instance of her, as she presented in the Courtroom to be, being a witness focusing on the questions and in calm voice, giving the best most accurate answer she could. That she did not recall the particular injury is consistent with the measure of her evidence that she having suffered multiple injuries at the hand of the defendant over time. Pauline did recall that the defendant was in the Doctors room during the consultation. She said that he had told her to tell the doctor that she had been robbed. That Dr Algan treated bruising consistent with injury suffered on 19 February 2013, is not evidence of a specific act of assault in January 2013.
Pauline did not give direct evidence of this event. Mary recalled that when in early 2013 and she was about to enter her final year of school, having started the year 12 syllabus the year before, on a hot day of the school holidays the family went to a public swimming pool, when the defendant accused Pauline of looking at a male person, who she described as looking like "The Pacifier", a character acted by Vin Diesel. Mary and Sally went to Church of Our Lady of Lebanon at Harris Park and after Mass when they looked at their phones, they saw what she estimated to be about 20 missed calls from the defendant's phone number to each of their phones; T 168. 13. When they called their father, he said that the call was by accident and that everything was okay and when they asked if they could stop for sweets on the way home, he said that they could. When they arrived at the Pitt Street home, Pauline, Sara and Peter told Sally and Mary that whilst they were in church, the defendant had bashed Pauline and their siblings because of the "Vin Diezel" event. Mary said that Sara explained that it was she who had called using the defendant's phone and at a stage when she had been in the family car, the defendant had punched her numerous times in the face because she refused to have a MacDonald's ice-cream: T 168. 34. Mary remembered the bruises and swelling on the faces and arms of Pauline and Sara.
Peter gave consistent evidence with that of Mary identifying the event with the day toward the beginning of 2013 when the family had attended the Parramatta Swimming Pools. He said that he and Sara attended the office because they had heard "slapping sounds". There he saw the defendant "repeatedly slapping my mum, hard as well. He slaps her loud": T 253. 45 He frankly stated that he could not recall what the defendant said at that time: T 253. 46 - 254. 9. He recalled that whilst he and Sara were looking into the study, from "a spot" in the kitchen Sara retrieved the defendant's phone which was in the kitchen and called Sally and Mary. When the defendant realised that they were calling someone, "he thought we were calling the police. So he stormed in" and to Sara said "call the police and I'll kill you.": T 254. 30. Peter gave the following evidence of what then occurred: T 254. 35 - 40 Q. Well, what happened? You were about to say, one thing led to the other, but I need to know what those A. So, he then proceeded to push Sara towards the couch and started laying into her with his fist closed. When my mother tried to stop him, she ended up on the couch, as well, and he was laying into both of them. I was young, at the time, and I - I wasn't as strong. So, I attempted to jump on his back and pull him off him and I succeeded.
Peter was then 11 years of age. The defendant ceased the assault and then said "let's go to Macca's and get ice cream": T 254. 50 - 255. 1.
Ann told police (Recorded Child Interview, Exhibit E/E4, 16 August 2019) that the defendant "was bashing my mother and my sister [Sara], like, jumped in front of my, like, mother, like jumped on his back to stop" the defendant. She also said that Peter, who was crying, tried to stop him. Ann said that she was only 8 years of age at the time and her memory was very vague (answers to questions 84 - 87).

[51]

Count 13 on 27 July 2014, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her physical or mental harm - s 13 (1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Pauline said that on 27 July 2014 the family went to Michael's parents' home for lunch. They took a cake for dessert. The defendant became visibly upset when Michael's sister did not offer to serve him a piece of cake first. He complained when away from Michael's family that he had been disrespected. In her more detailed evidence of "disrespect" Sally explained that in her family's culture, the guest is served first. But that Michael's father had been saying how much he was looking forward to a piece of the cake which Pauline and the defendant had brought. It was in that circumstance that Michael's sister served her father first.
The consistent evidence of Pauline, Sally and Michael is that the defendant immediately became short in conversation and very soon afterward determined that they would leave. Pauline said that after she and the defendant had dropped their children at home, he drove them around and was saying that he was "going to kill" her. She said that he was hitting her in the car whilst he drove. When they came to an intersection she tried to escape from the vehicle but the defendant caught her. When they returned to the home, he took her into the garage and held her against a wall at the back of the garage and placed a screwdriver against her neck. At the same time he said "I should kill you". Pauline screamed. The evidence of Pauline and Sally is that following her scream Sally entered the garage and pleaded with the defendant as to what was going on. Pauline said that the defendant then took the screwdriver down from her neck in a way that Sally was not to see. Sally's more detailed evidence was that she did see the defendant turn the shaft of the screwdriver up against his lowered arm.
Sally provided the further detail that the Boujandy family had hosted Michael's family on 1 January 2014 and Michael's family hosting the Boujandy family on 27 July 2014 was the returned compliment. Her evidence, including this detail, illustrated the accuracy of her recollection. She remembered the photograph of Michael's sister with her baby (Exhibit A tab 4A) taken that day. She described the defendant's change of facial expression when the first piece of cake was delivered to Michael's father in terms of change of colour, gritting of teeth and conversation thereafter of one word answers. She recalled that when they left the defendant sped off in the Boujandy family vehicle before Michael, herself and Ann drove from Michael's parents' home to the Pitt Street home.
On arrival at the Pitt Street home Sally observed Mary and Sara, who had travelled with the defendant and Pauline in the Boujandy family car, outside that vehicle talking through the front window with their hands open. She described what she saw as conveying the impression to her that they were "questioning or trying to negotiate": T 80. 47. As she and Michael quickly jumped out of their vehicle, she saw the defendant speed off with Pauline in the family car. She was told by Mary and Sara of the defendant's anger that Pauline had accepted the piece of cake and eaten it when he and the Boujandy family, as guests, had not been served first. She said (T 81. 5): "So, dad felt disrespected and so, like, mum had dishonoured him, but he was really angry, and the girls were really scared."
Sally, Michael and her siblings waited in the lounge room for the family car to return. After about half an hour they saw, from windows, the car return and reverse into the drive way "really fast" (T 81. 14). She put her ear to the door of the garage, knowing that Pauline and the defendant were in the garage and she could hear the defendant "rasping" and "growling" at Pauline, saying that she had "disrespected" him and "he was going to kill her.": T 81. 20 - 24. Then she heard Pauline shriek "like from the pit of her stomach, like, I'd not heard anything like it" (T 81. 27). Sally ran downstairs and through the garage door where she saw Pauline pinned by the defendant to the back wall of the garage and the defendant pressing something against her neck. Sally asked "what's going on?". It was then that the defendant turned the screwdriver shaft against his lowered forearm.
Sally recalled the defendant asking whether Michael had heard anything, to which she answered in the negative and when the defendant asked how Sally had heard, she told him she had been near the front door. He statement was a ruse because she was fearful of action the defendant might take if he was aware that Michael knew. Pauline's scream had been so loud Sally said that all of them present heard it. At that point the situation defused, and Pauline and the defendant went to the defendant's office. She told her siblings and Michael that the defendant had been holding a screwdriver to Pauline's neck.
Michael's evidence, of the defendant's reaction when the cake was first served, his following demeanour, the departure from Michael's parents home and the experience of the arrival at Pitt Street was consistent with the evidence given by Pauline and Sally. He described the sounds coming from the garage as "incoherent" and "grunting". He said that he heard the defendant say "I'm going to fucking kill you" and seconds later Pauline screamed. He recalled that it was when he arose in response, Sally told him not to go and she went to the garage. He observed that Sally was noticeably "shaken" when she returned. Sally then told him the defendant put a screwdriver to the Pauline's neck.
Neither Sally nor Pauline gave evidence of any injury, sign or symptom from the screwdriver placed at her neck by the defendant. Michael's evidence (T 124. 6 - 26.) was as follows: Q. Now just listen to my question. Yes or no. Sally told you something that she had seen downstairs. Yes or no? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Well, it's hearsay. She saw it. Yes. Okay. What did she say to you? A. When she came up, she was shaking. She said that he had put a screwdriver to her neck. Q. Her neck being not Sally's neck, her mother's neck. Is that right? A. Yes. Pauline's neck. Q. Pauline's neck. Okay. Later that day in that house, did you see Pauline? A. Yes. Q. Did you notice something? A. Yes. I noticed the mark on her neck. Q. And what colour was the mark? A. Red.
Mary's evidence of this event was consistent with that given by Pauline, Sally and Michael. Her recollection was even more detailed than was Sally's and Michael's. She recalled that it was Michael's older sister Michelle who cut the cake and gave the first piece to Michael's father (Michael Snr). She recalled Michelle then asked if anyone else wanted a piece and that Pauline had answered in the affirmative. Consistently with the evidence of Pauline, Sally and Michael, Mary described the change in the defendants demeanour when this occurred, that he got upset became very anti-social and she noticed that he was shaking his knee and grinding his teeth.
Mary travelled in the car with Pauline and the defendant from Michael's parents' home to the Pitt Street home and she described the defendant having complained to Pauline that he had been "disrespected". She said that he threatened to kill all of the family. She assessed the defendant's reaction as having been triggered by her family not being offered the first piece and because Pauline had accepted a piece after Michael Snr.
She recalled that the defendant sped off in the car with Pauline after she and Sara had exited. Her evidence of herself and her siblings with Michael watching the return of the car, the defendant and Pauline going to the garage and the shouting was consistent with the evidence of Pauline, Sally and Michael. She remembered Pauline's desperate scream and that Sally went to the garage and that afterward the defendant and Pauline came out.
Her recollection was that when Sally and Pauline came upstairs, the defendant continued to argue with Pauline but then stormed out of the house and left: T 172. 28. This is not consistent with the evidence of other witnesses that Pauline and the defendant went to the office. As I heard this evidence and based on my assessment of Mary as a witness, I considered this inconsistency to be revealing of the independence of her evidence from that of the other witnesses.
Mary said that when she went up to Sally and her mum as they arrived from the garage (T 172. 29) "I saw a mark on Mums neck and asked her what had happened. Sally and Mum told me dad was pushing a screwdriver into mums neck and trying to kill mum."
Sara's evidence was consistent with the evidence of Pauline, Sally, Michael and Mary, of this event. She described that the defendant became "really agitated" that Pauline had accepted a piece of the cake. She recalled the defendant screaming at Pauline when she, with the defendant, Pauline and Mary were in the car and on arrival at the Pitt Street home. She recalled that she and Mary were told to get out of the car because the defendant was going to take Pauline for a drive and she recalled being really scared because she knew "what that meant".
Sara recalled that after Sally, Michael, Ann and Peter arrived home and whilst the defendant and Pauline were still away, they were all scared and she did not know what to do. She said that the defendant was growling after the car did return and the defendant took Pauline into the garage. She heard Pauline screaming from the garage. She recounted Sally ran downstairs to the garage.
Sara said that when Pauline came upstairs from the garage she had a mark on her neck which was red. Sally recalled being very scared that day, when she was only about 13 years of age: T 227. 18 - 228. 09.
Consistent with the evidence of the other witnesses, Peter recalled this incident and his returning to the Pitt Street home in Michael's car with Sally and Ann. He said that he knew that Pauline and the defendant were arguing but he could not see if the defendant was hitting Pauline in the other car. I understood this passage of evidence to indicate the measure of his recollection of a real concern, based on his experience, that the defendant might have been hitting his mother. He saw the defendant drop off his siblings and drive off. His evidence, consistent with that of the other witnesses was that he later saw the defendant drag Pauline into the garage and that from the garage he heard the defendant shout "I want to kill you": T 277. 39. He recalled that Sally ran downstairs and when she returned she informed him that the defendant had held a screwdriver to Pauline's throat. Then Pauline and the defendant went into the office.
Pauline said that the defendant numerous times spoke words of the threat that he would kill her. This was one of several points in the evidence where Pauline said that the defendant would accuse her of cheating on him when she had never done so. She said that he always asked her about cheating on him. On further questioning in chief she said that she and the defendant argued probably every day but that she had tried to bury every incident as a coping mechanism. She tried to move on and forget.

[55]

Count 17 - On 16 August 2016, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Pauline - s 61 Crimes Act 1900

Pauline said that on 16 August 2016 on return from Merrylands shops, whilst the defendant was driving the car, they argued and he punched her in the face, both by a left backhand slap and by a closed left hand fist. When they got to the driveway of their home, Pauline got out of the car and ran to escape the defendant. She reached a point at about four houses along Pitt Street before the defendant caught her. He dragged her by applying a brace type hold around her neck, along Pitt Street, back to the house and into the kitchen. There he took out a butchers knife and held it to Pauline's neck. On hearing noise, Mary ran into the kitchen and on seeing the defendant with the knife to Pauline's throat, she screamed. When Mary screamed the defendant let go of the knife. Pauline fell to the ground.
Mary remembered the events of the 16th of August 2016, it being four days after her 21st birthday on the 12th of August 2016. She was in her bedroom when she heard banging noises so she ran to the kitchen. Her evidence of the incident of her father holding a butchers knife pushed against her mothers throat and of her screaming before the defendant dropped the knife is consistent with the evidence of Pauline. Mary recalled that the knife dropped into the sink and that Pauline was gasping for air. It took Pauline a while to recuperate and breath: T 173. 3.
Mary saw a mark on Pauline's neck. She recalled Pauline saying I think he's - he forgot you were home otherwise he would have killed me: T 175. 5. The balance of her evidence that her mother told her of her running down the street, being caught and brought back is consistent with Pauline's evidence. Exhibit G includes a text message from Mary to her boyfriend Vikram at 9:54 am, 16 August 2016 which includes the message to him: "He had a knife against her" and that Pauline had tried to leave the defendant but he did not let her.

[57]

H72032147 Sequence 11 - defendant assault - Grabbing Sally by the arm and squeezing her tight with both hands - s 166 certificate

The crown opened with the relevant date being a "day in May 2017". The evidence in fact led was of a day 1 month before the marriage of Michael and Sally, which would place the events charged as a day in April 2017. The particulars of charge for Sequences 10 and 11 were amended unopposed and with leave to April to May 2017.
The evidence of Pauline was that the defendant wanted to stop the marriage of Sally and Michael. She remembered that defendant arrived at the Pitt Street home from having picked up Mary from university, when Michael was leaving the house. Pauline heard an argument coming from the driveway argument; the defendant swearing at Michael "leave or I will kill you" and Michael saying "Can we talk - talk - go upstairs and talk about it": T 17. 5 - 21.
Sally said that about 1 month before they were to marry she and Michael decided to rent a granny flat before purchasing a property when they could. She commenced a conversation with the defendant about the decision and in the evening it turned into an argument whilst they were on the driveway of the Pitt Street home. Michael was present. As they were trying to explain to the defendant that they wanted some time together after the wedding, before making a decision to buy a property, he was insisting that they would live in the Pitt Street home until they purchased a property. He started swearing at Michael telling Michael to "fuck off". Sally became upset saying "please, Dad, calm down. Let's talk about it. Let's go upstairs". The defendant answered: "No. What are you going to do? Go kill yourself. Go fucking kill yourself." And he kept telling Michael to "fuck off" and that he did not want them to marry: T 77. 35 - 40. Despite Sally pleading with the defendant that they go upstairs and sit down to talk, he grabbed her upper arm "quite hard and shook - shook it" and said "get the fuck upstairs. I'll deal with you later": T 77. 45.
At that point Michael tried to calm the defendant by putting his hand up and saying "hey….let's just calm down. Let's just talk." The defendant turned on him abruptly and said "don't fucking touch me". Sally said that Michael had not actually touched the defendant at that point but that the defendant continued: "I'll kill you if you touch me. God doesn't want me." Sally interpreted this last statement at the defendant indicating that he could not die.
Sally went upstairs and watched out the window of the house at the rest of the argument between the defendant and Michael. It resolved. Ultimately Sally and Michael agreed to move into the Pitt Street home rather than a granny flat.
Michael's evidence was consistent with the evidence of Sally and Pauline in regard to this event. He provided further detail that when the defendant pulled into the drive way he had the window down in the car and he told Michael to "fuck off". When Michael asked him what was wrong and if there was an issue, could they talk about it; the defendant got out of the car and continued to tell him to "fuck off". He recalled that it was about at that point that Sally and Pauline arrived at the scene (T 138. 25). Michael's evidence was the defendant said to Sally "if you want to go with him, fuck off, like go fuck off" before he told her to go inside because he would deal with her later: T 138. 30. However, Sally remained at the driveway trying to speak to the defendant in a de-escalating way. Michael said it was at that point that the defendant grabbed Sally with both of his hands to her arms. He indicated at the left and right bicep region of Sally's arm: 138. 45. Michael said it was when Sally protested "stop, your hurting me" that he put his hand on the defendants arm - Michael said "passively" because he was worried that the defendant would hit Sally. The defendant turned to him and said; "you touch me, I'm going to kill you": T 139. 13. Michael recalled that it was then that the defendant spoke about his having killed people in the war in Lebanon and that he was not afraid to kill. Michael kept asking if they could talk about whatever the defendant's problem was. The defendant then said to Sally "go fucking commit suicide" and whilst Michael kept trying to talk to the defendant in a de-escalating way, Sally re-entered the house. Michael also recalled that the defendant then started speaking about his parents having disrespected the defendant by not turning up to the defendant's mother's funeral. Eventually the situation did calm.
Michael also gave evidence of a conversation he had with the defendant whilst they were walking in which the defendant relayed to him that the defendant had advised a friend at the gym whose wife was being unfaithful, to be nice to her as if smoothing things over and then take her over to Lebanon and chop her head off.
Mary's evidence of these events was consistent with the evidence of Pauline, Sally and Michael. Her recollection included the detail that before arriving at the Pitt Street home, the defendant told her as they drove from her university to the home, that he was upset because Michael's parents had not come to Mary's grandmothers funeral. She said that when, on the driveway, the defendant was telling Michael to "fuck off" and Michael was asking the defendant what was wrong. Mary stood near Michael because she was scared for him. She recalled that the defendant made numerous threats to kill Michael. One of them being something like "god doesn't want me, but if you touch me, it will be the last thing you ever do": T 178. 38.
Ann's recollection of this event was seeing the defendant and Michael, from a window of the Pitt Street home, when she assessed, by their mannerisms, that they were, by mannerisms, in a heated argument on the driveway. She said that every time the defendant got angry, he had the same expressions and hand movements. He used his hands a lot when they would argue: T 236. 14. That is what she saw on this occasion. She said that Michael was just standing back.
Characteristic of her truthful and accurate evidence, when asked whether she had heard anything, she answered (T 237. 24): "I just heard muffled - like, muffled arguing. I couldn't hear distinctly." Had Ann been a witness who's evidence was concocted or the product of collusion with Pauline and her family, she might have given evidence of what the argument was about. When she gave this answer, she again impressed me as a witness giving truthful and accurate evidence.
Peter said that about a month before Sally and Michael were to marry, there was an argument out the front of the house between the defendant and Michael and Sally was involved. Peter said that the defendant told Sally to go upstairs and that he would "deal" with her later. He said that the defendant gave his car keys to Pauline saying "hold my keys" Peter was concerned that the defendant said this because he wanted to free his hands so he could start a physical fight with Michael. This evidence was not tested in cross examination. I received it as the as a truthful statement of an impression held by Peter from his recollection of that day.

[58]

Count 18 - On 27 October 2017, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did assault Pauline occasioning actual bodily harm to her - s 59(1) Crimes Act 1900

Pauline gave the year of 2010 as when the defendant punched her in the face and he broke her teeth. She also identified that event with her attending dentist, Dr Bui to attend to her teeth: T 28. 23 - 29. Exhibit B is a written statement by Dr Tu Chong Bui. This statement was tendered without objection. Dr Bui was not called to give oral evidence. Dr Bui wrote that it was on 27 October 2017 when Pauline presented to his practice with an issue concerning her two upper incisor (central) teeth. He reported that they were a bit sore to touch but there was no looseness. His observation as that the problem with her teeth was "caused by a mild physical force" and that Pauline responded to his enquiry, telling him that she had fallen and hit her teeth in her house.
There is no dispute that Dr Bui's statement and Pauline's evidence of being punched in the mouth, concern the same incident: T 51. 35; T 28. 27 - 29. 6. Seven years is a significant error of memory as to time identifying the event. The injury to teeth and lips described in the evidence was specific. There was no evidence of a similar injury on a separate occasion. Being in mind the limited evidence in this Special Hearing, I accept that concession by Counsel for the defendant in regard to the evidence of a single event described. There was no defence submission that the particular as to time was essential to the Count. Nor would there properly have been: Vella v R [2002] NSWCCA 204 at [43]-[44] and [48]-[53].
Pauline said that she and the defendant had again been arguing in the car and when she turned to look at him, he punched her straight in the face. She thought he had broken her two front teeth. Her mouth was bleeding. Her lips swelled up. She went to see Dr Bui to make sure her teeth were not broken. Pauline said that she lied to Dr Bui about falling over, as was her common story for "a lot of my injuries that have happened in the past (T 29. 49) because if she told other persons what had happened, the defendant "would've killed me": T 28. 50.
Sally recalled this event having occurred at about the time the family moved from the Pitt Street home to the Beechwood home. She and Michael were helping with the move. The Boujandy family moved in May 2017 not on 27 October 2017. Nevertheless this evidence revealed the mistake in placing the event in 2010. They had purchased their own property elsewhere. Sally and Michael moved to their own property in October 2017. She recalled that Pauline came down the stairs to say hello when Sally noticed that her face was puffy and that she was speaking like there was something wrong with her mouth. Pauline showed Sally under her top lip, where there was a little cut. Pauline told Sally that the defendant had punched her in the face earlier on.
Michael's evidence was consistent with the evidence of Sally concerning his observation of Pauline showing to he and Sally her lip and tooth. He recalled Pauline saying that she did not know what she would say to people who came over because she was worried about her appearance. He recalled she was particularly worried about what she would tell police officer Kylie Whiting if she saw the cut on her lip and the bruise on her chin. Michael was aware that Officer Whiting was a friend of both the defendant and Pauline. He had met her.

[59]

Count 19 - Between 31 December 2017 and 1 January 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007;

During closing submissions the Crown applied to amend the particulars of date in the Indictment for Count 19. The amendment was to substitute "31 December 2017 to 1 January 2019" for "on 31 December 2018". The application was not opposed.
The Special Hearing was conducted on the limited evidence of witnesses called by the Crown. All witnesses - the defendant's family except for Sally gave evidence of this event. All evidence identified the event with the occasion of Peter turning off the lights whilst the family, Sally being absent, watched New Years Eve fireworks on television at home.
I am satisfied that the particular of the specific date 31 December 2018 was not essential to the Count; nor do I find any disadvantage to the defendant in the amendment: Vellar v R [2022] NSWCCA at [43] - [44] and [48] - [53]. I allow the amendment to Count 19 on the Indictment such that the date range "between 31 December 2017 and 1 January 2019" be substituted for "31 December 2018".
Pauline said that at New Years Eve 31 December 2017 the family were sitting watching fireworks on the television, with the exception of Sally who was then married and living elsewhere. Peter turned off the TV room light in order to best permit illumination of the fireworks picture. This triggered the defendant to start shouting that the family had ruined the year, that the lights should not have been turned off and that they had to stay on. Pauline said that he was ranting and raving and saying "I'll shoot you all": T 28. 1. This caused Pauline fear because she was aware that the defendant kept a rifle in his cupboard.
Mary's evidence of this event was consistent with Pauline's evidence, with the extra detail that the defendant had turned on all of the lights in the house because he thought it would bring good luck but Peter did not know the defendant had done that. She said that Peter turned off only one of the lights. When her father started shouting at Peter, Mary was shocked and her reaction was to smile which she said made the defendant even angrier: T 179. 45. She recalled that the defendant said that he would "shoot" "us all" because we had ruined the year for him: T 180. 9.
Ann recalled this event as having occurred during the first family New Years Eve at which Sally was not present. Sally had married in 2017 and in October moved to the home she and Michael had purchased. Sally was at a party with her colleagues: T 239. 30 - 35. Ann said that every year the family sat down, all together, to watch the fireworks on television. Her evidence is consistent with that given by Pauline, Peter and Mary that when Peter turned off the light, the defendant became angry with the whole family. Ann did not remember exactly what he said, but she also recalled that the defendant accused Peter of ruining the rest of the year for the family. Her memory was that the defendant threatened to shoot the whole family with the guns: T 239. 48.

[60]

Count 20 - Between 31 December 2018 and 1 February 2019 at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Peter intending to cause him to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Peter gave evidence including detail of a prior confrontation with the defendant also concerning the "Fortnite" game he was playing on Play Station. His father entered the dining room where he was playing and they had an argument about whether or not Peter should stop playing. As Peter left to go downstairs (he had been playing on the dining room table in the dining area upstairs) he said "why are you getting mad - so mad for?": T 261. 18. The defendant responded with words to the effect "are you calling me mad?" and then the defendant did what Peter described as "he came to staunch me". He explained that the defendant positioned himself above Peter and in front of him in his personal space in an aim to cause Peter fear: T 260. 50. Peter described his reaction to the defendant as follows: "got up in his face and said to him, "then do something"". He agreed that by saying that, he inflamed the situation but the defendant stormed off into the kitchen and mumbled "I'll just shoot you": T 262. 14.
Mary also recalled that during the school and university holidays in January 2019, Peter was playing the Play Station when the defendant told him to stop. Peter agreed but asked why the defendant was "mad". Mary said that the defendant became angry because he thought Peter was saying that he was "mad" like mentally affected. She came out of her bedroom to try to see if she could ease the situation of their arguing. When they were at the top of the stairs, the defendant reached up against Peter and told him "I'm going to fucking hit you" to which Peter responded "do something". At that point, Peter started to go downstairs and the defendant said "I'll just shoot you instead." Mary said that she was very scared that night that the defendant would do something to Peter. Peter was still in high school she described him as not having "a big size in comparison to my dad": T 181. 1.

[62]

Sequence 18 - Assault - Sara - 27 March 2019 - by grabbing her head and slamming it on the nearby wall

Sara told police, in her recorded interview made on 16 August 2019 that "a few months ago" the defendant was screaming at her and he grabbed her head and slammed it on the wall and was shaking her head. She did not remember the date. She said that the defendant had threatened to cut her up and to feed her to the pigs and she believed that she would do that: Exhibit E/E3 page 7. The more detailed evidence of Mary and Peter to which I now come, establishes the date of 27 March 2019. In the evidence there was only one event of the defendant slamming Sara's head into a wall.
Mary recalled this event on 27 March 2019 because it was hearing her father scream, banging noises and her sister Sara saying "stop" which caused Mary to leave the shower and without drying put on clothes and run into the lounge/dining area where she saw her father with both his hands grabbing Sara's arms. Sara was crying. Peter was trying to stand between the defendant and Sara, to try to intervene and stop the defendant. Peter's friend, Stephen Khoudair was present and made an audio recording (exhibit H). In exhibit H the defendant is heard shouting to Sara (at the 20 second mark) "I'll fucking send your head into the wall right" and (at the 23 second mark) "what do you wanna do, do you want to call the fuckin cops call the cops, i'll send your fuckin head into the wall, you call the cops". He is also heard to call his son, Peter, "a sick, dog" (at 1 minute 8 seconds). One can also hear a female (agreed to be Sara: T 183. 40) voice saying "stop touching me" and a male voice saying "what are you fucking going to do? Call the ambulance": T 183. 5 - 15. The defendant's shouting is hostile and aggressive during the recording.
Peter said that on 27 March 2019 at 7:24 pm he was playing Play Station with his cousin Steven Khoudair when the event the subject of this Count occurred. He was able to be precise with the time because a video was obtained from the Play Station. Whilst he was wearing a headset, he only had one earmuff on. He heard the screaming between the defendant and Sara. Then he heard a big bang. So he looked up and got up and realised the defendant had done something to Sara. Peter got up and pushed the defendant onto the couch and tried to defuse the situation. Stephen Khoudair later told Peter that he had recorded a clip of the argument on the Play Station.

[66]

Count 24 - On 29 July 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, intimidate Mary with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Pauline's evidence of this event was by way of DVEC recorded by police on 16 August 2019 and by oral evidence. Pauline's DVEC is Exhibit E/E1.
Pauline said that she and the defendant had not shared a bedroom for a number of years. Exhibit A, tab 13A is a video recording of a police search at the Beechwood Avenue home on 18 August 2019. It shows a bedroom in the top floor of the house which was identified as Pauline and the defendant's bedroom/office as well as a bedroom on the ground floor of the house which was identified as the defendant's bedroom. References in the evidence to Pauline's bedroom are references to the bedroom/office upstairs.
29 July 2019 was a date remembered by Pauline and her children who gave evidence because it was three days after Sally and Michael had left to travel overseas. It was also a little more than two weeks before they attended police.
On the morning of the 29th of July 2019 at about 9:30 am the defendant came to Pauline's bedroom and his office upstairs. They were arguing. Mary was at home. She came and stood in the doorway between that bedroom and the hall. In her DVEC Pauline by words and actions described her position as backed up against the wall and the defendant standing in the open doorway. He was not letting her leave the room. He was hitting her. In order to escape she told him that she needed to go to the bathroom. She required three attempts to move through the doorway before she was able to achieve exit from the room and go to the bathroom.
Pauline described the defendant as "really enraged", shouting and swearing. He had pushed her back to a position against the wall where, as described and demonstrated by her, he placed his open palmed hands on either side of her head and squeezed it, pushing her head to the wall, which hurt her but left no mark or swelling. At other times he had his hands on either side of the wall around her, preventing her escape. Pauline was afraid because she did not want to be hit more by the defendant. As Mary was standing in the doorway Pauline was able to shove or push the defendant away and escape.
Mary's evidence of the event on the morning of the 29th of July 2019 is consistent with that given by Pauline. Her DVEC is exhibit E/E2. She said that the defendant was making threats to Pauline including that if she did not leave he was going to hurt her and that it was better that she leave instead of him hurting her at home in front of the children. After Mary heard that argument, the defendant and Pauline took the children to school. Typical of the detail in Mary's evidence she recalled that on their return home the defendant went into his office but only for about 5 minutes before he came out and started arguing with Pauline again. This caused Mary to come out of her room. She said that in her parents (Pauline's) bedroom the defendant was screaming and he bridged up against Pauline saying words to the effect that she should go kill herself, or, if she did not kill herself, he should kill her. Mary described the same incident of the defendant preventing Pauline from leaving the room and gave the greater detail that he shoved her against the wall and her head hit the wall. In her DVEC she demonstrated this as a push with the hand. She did not demonstrate a forceful shoulder type shove. In the DVEC she said "he sort of shoved her against the wall".
Mary was unable to enter the room because the defendant was standing in the doorway. She was trying to tell him to calm down and to let Pauline go to the bathroom, as she had asked. The defendant then told her to "shut the fuck up" and "I'm going to fucking kill you". Mary described the defendant shaking Pauline and it was when she tried to intervene that the defendant threatened to kill Mary. She recalled that at the point the defendant said those things to her, Pauline tried to exit and the defendant grabbed her arm and pushed her or sort of shoved her back into the wall. She recalled the defendant also saying to Pauline: "no, don't kill yourself in this house because if you do then I can into trouble. If you're going to kill yourself, do it somewhere else. Not. Not under my roof." She recalled that Pauline was in the bathroom vomiting when the defendant was saying these things. Mary was very scared.
Later on 29 July 2019, in the evening, Pauline was helping Sara with her university assignment at the dining room table in the upstairs of the house. Pauline had her sewing kit on the table. The defendant started shouting again, swearing and making allegations that Pauline had cheated on him in an earlier stage of their life together: T 30. 34.
The defendant picked up the scissors from the sewing kit and said to Pauline "I should kill you with this". Then the children settled him down.
In her DVEC (Exhibit E/E3) Sara said that she recalled her parents arguing in the morning before she left for university. When she returned at around 9 pm, they were still arguing. Sara told Pauline that she needed help reading over a university assignment, but did so just to get Pauline away from the defendant. She said they were sitting at the dining room table and Pauline was at the side of the table closest to where the defendant was standing. The defendant came in and started "going off at her". Pauline's sewing was in front of her and a pair of scissors was on the table. Sara said that the defendant told Pauline that he would, wanted to grab the scissors and put them in her neck. By then it was about 10 pm.
Exhibit J is a surreptitiously obtained recording, by Sara, of four periods of the defendant screaming at Pauline and at points, Peter on that evening. The passages show the defendants relentless berating of Pauline on the basis of his belief that she cheated on him and ruined his life.
In accordance with what Sara told police during her DVEC on 16 August 2019, at 38 seconds of the first Exhibit J recording, the defendant screamed "I swear to god. I put the fucking scissors in your throat and I, you understand?". Sara told police that the defendant said to Pauline "if I fucking hammered you when they were little then you would have stopped and I should have killed you in the fucking morning instead of telling you to go to sleep." Sara said that she was scared by the defendant's threats. She told Constable Hepburn that the defendant had threatened her on multiple occasions over time and on the 29th of July 2019 that he told Sara that if she kept talking he would hit her; that the defendant he would chop Sara up and feed her to the pigs.
Ann's evidence of this event is consistent with that of Pauline and Mary save that she recalled the defendant's threat involving the scissors in different terms. She said that she could not recall word for word but that it was to the effect of him shoving the scissors down Pauline's throat: T 244. 24. That she could not recall the exact words of the threat, was an admission again indicating that Ann was careful to be accurate with her evidence and was not seeking revenge. Ann recalled that she put the sewing kit in the cupboard because there were needles and things, in order to minimise the harm that could be done to her mother Pauline. She recalled having been shaken up.
Pauline and Ann each gave evidence of a third incident on 29 July 2019. On that day Ann was experiencing her first menstrual cycle. Ann was sleeping with Pauline in Pauline's upstairs bedroom, when Pauline felt the defendant shake her on the shoulder. She woke up and screamed and immediately tapped Ann on her hand to alert her that the defendant was in the room. In her evidence Ann described this as a prearranged code between them; that a tap on the hand meant that the defendant had entered the room. Pauline said that the defendant told her that he had experienced a nightmare and had come to her bedroom three times to strangle her whilst she slept: T 30. 45 - 31. 05. The defendant started arguing with Pauline. Ann asked if she could go to the bathroom with Pauline. This was a ruse to avoid the defendant's behaviour. They went to the bathroom and waited until they considered the defendant to have returned to his bedroom downstairs and gone to sleep. Ann gave evidence; that she was unable to get back to sleep after she and Pauline had returned to Pauline's bed because she was too scared.
Pauline said that she did not consent on any occasion to the defendant hitting her, punching her, pressing a screwdriver to her neck, putting a butchers knife to her neck or any other physical action upon her by him.

[73]

Sequence 11 - Possess prohibited weapon without permit - s 166 certificate - 3 self loading magazines, each with a 30 round capacity, loaded with 74 .223 rounds across the 3 magazines

When, on 15 August 2019, the defendant, with Mary and Sara attended Merrylands police station to report Pauline as a missing person, he informed police that he had a rifle at the Beechwood home. In her DVEC, on being told this by Constable Hepburn, Pauline said that the defendant had possessed a rifle from many years beforehand, but he had never used it. In her oral evidence she said that the defendant possessed the rifle even when they were dating and he said it was "from the wartimes and it's a remembrance of his - comrades that fell in Lebanon": T 17. 30. She described it as an "M-14" and said that there were containers with bullets in them and that the rifle was stored in a zippered brown leather bag. She said that the rifle was engraved with a message which she did not recall. She did not know whether or not the bullets and magazines fitted the rifle. The last time she had seen the rifle was at Beechwood Street home.
Sally first saw the rifle in the brown case when she was about 13 years of age, in about 2005. At the Pitt Street home she and one of her sisters were searching for videos in a cupboard in the defendant's office. They called the cupboard the "Jesus cupboard" because of the Jesus memorabilia posted on it. Over the years she saw the rifle multiple times. She said that she and her siblings wanted to know where it was so they could hide it if things went really badly between Pauline and the defendant. She last saw the rifle when she was at the Pitt Street home before her marriage to Michael in 2017.
Michael recalled studying at the Boujandy home in July 2017 with Peter when Peter asked if Michael wanted to see a rifle in the "Jesus cupboard". Michael told Peter he did not want to see it.
Mary gave evidence, consistent with that of Pauline and her siblings of having seen a rifle in a brown bag in defendants Jesus cupboard. The last time she saw the rifle was at the Beechwood Avenue home.
Sara like Pauline and her siblings said that the last time she had seen the rifle was at the Beechwood home. She also said it was contained in a brown leather case. She described it as being dark grey or black and a really big gun. The first time she recalled seeing it was in 2007 at the Pitt Street home inside the defendants Jesus cupboard.
Ann's evidence was consistent with that of Pauline and her siblings. Her being a young person, her evidence of what the other evidence establishes as the rifle, was very generalised. She said (T 238. 2) "….to the best of my memory, it was, like, a light - brown - brownish colour." She did not remember whether it was kept with anything. The first time she saw it was at the Pitt Street home and it was locked in the defendant's cupboard to which he had a key. She said that "none of us had access.": T 238. 9. This last passage of evidence was not entirely consistent with that of Pauline, Sally, Michael, Mary and Sara. In my view the inconsistency showed she was giving the most truthful evidence she could to the best of her memory. In addition, that it was not entirely consistent with the evidence of other family member witnesses as to access to the defendant's cupboard is a further example of her evidence revealing that it is not fabricated, concocted or the product of collusion with other witnesses. She saw the rifle last at the Beechwood Avenue home. She recalled it being upon the boxes when the family moved from Pitt Street to Beechwood Avenue.
Peter said that when he was young he would look through his father's office out of curiosity. He recalled that in 2013 in the defendant's cupboard he found a leather case with something heavy inside. In January 2015 when his father was at a commercial gymnasium he went to look in his father's office. He saw the case, pulled it out and opened it. He saw a rifle and three magazines containing bullets. The last time he saw the rifle was when assisting with the move from Pitt Street to Beechwood Avenue in about June 2017. He saw the defendant pack it.
In 2018, just after Christmas, at the Beechwood Avenue home, Peter and Sara looked for where the rifle was. Peter said that the rifle was in a different cupboard in that house. The cupboard was in the defendant's office. The defendant had an office in each of the houses. He and Sara found the rifle case, took the rifle out of the case and inspected it further. He said that they shone torches on it and found some writing engraved in it. They researched and found that the writing represented "some American secret service thing": T 260. 20. He said the engraving was on the side of the rifle, in the wood, as if it had been marked in by a knife or a pen. He and Sara packed the rifle away.
Although, it is not be the subject of any charge, Pauline described also a handgun. Her evidence was that it was a "smaller handgun" kept in the defendant's sock drawer. She said it was black with a brown handle; T 20. 49. She saw it every time she packed the defendant's socks in his sock drawer at the Pitt Street property.
Peter said that in 2013 he found a revolver in the defendants sock draw when the defendant had asked him to pack his socks away. He described it as looking like a "magnum". He said it was large and that he had to hold it with two hands, being only a "kid". He said there was a spinning barrel. He said that he was not sure of his terms because he was not familiar with gun terminology. In 2016 when he was in the office studying with Michael, they took a break and Peter showed Michael the defendant's revolver. He recalled that Michael said to put it back. Peter did not see the handgun other than when living at Pitt Street.
Michael recalled that in June 2017, when he and Peter were each studying at the Boujandy home, Peter showed him a handgun in the sock draw of the defendants "Jesus Cupboard". Michael's description of the gun was not identical to Pauline's or Peter's. He said that it was a dark colour, brown or black with a silver body. He said it was like a revolver with a long nose piece. Michael said that "the hand gun ….like a real gun it had weight behind it" (T 120. 1) and he remembered wiping it with a cloth before he put it back into the sick draw so his fingerprints would not be on it.
Mary also gave evidence of having seen a handgun in the defendant's sock draw. The first time she saw it, she was doing year 4 school homework and she went to the stationery drawer. She described the gun as having a brown handle and a black nozzle. This recollection is more consistent with Pauline's than with Michael's. The last time she saw the handgun was at the Pitt Street home.
On Sara's description, the handgun was "a little one". It was silver and had a grip. When she said "little one", I understood her to be differentiating from what we know to be a rifle which she described as a larger one. Her evidence is to be understood as from a person without knowledge of guns. She said that she did not know the difference between a pistol and a rifle. The last time she saw the handgun was in the defendants sock draw at the Pitt Street home.
Ann described, a hand gun, of about the size of maybe an A4 sheet of paper. She said that it was dark brown in colour. She saw it when packing clothes in the defendants sock draw at the Pitt Street home.
Following Pauline's DVEC, on the evening of 15 August 2019, police attended the Beechwood Avenue home with the consent of Sara, accompanied by Mary to search for the rifle. Police found the rifle in a brown bag inside a built in wardrobe. On the shelf above police located three ammunition magazines for the rifle. The magazines contained ammunition.
Police expert evidence is that the rifle was a .223 Remington calibre RUGER Model Mini 14 self loading model, serial number 182-95699. The rifle was in working order. It was of a kind designed or adapted for military purposes and a prohibited firearm. The magazines and ammunition located could be used in the rifle.
On 16 August 2019 Constables Hansell and Kim inspected the rifle and counted the ammunition located in the three magazines. Constable Hansell attached photographs of the rifle, a Ruger M-14 Semi automatic, the three magazines, the cartridges and brown case to his statement made 13 December 2019; exhibit A tab 13. In his statement made 10 April 2020 (exhibit A tab 15) Senior Constable Hay, expert Forensic Firearms Examiner described the rifle as a self loading centre fire of a kind that is designed or adapted for military purposes. On test firing, he found it to be in working order. The three magazines were suitable for use in the rifle. The ammunition was of two types: they being, .223 Remington Calibre Cartridges suitable for use in the rifle and 5.56 x .45 mm NATO calibre cartridges which could be fired from the rifle but such use was not recommended, they being military cartridges which created higher chamber pressures compared to that of the .223 Remington Calibre Cartridges.
In his unchallenged expert opinion Senior Constable Hay stated that the rifle is a prohibited firearm as defined in Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Firearms Act 1996; the three magazines are each Firearm Parts as described in Section 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. The magazines are also Prohibited Weapons as described in Clause 4(4)(b) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998; the 37 5.56 x .45 mm NATO calibre cartridges are Ammunition as defined in Section 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996; and 38 223 Remington Calibre Cartridges are Ammunition as defined in Section 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. According to the NSW Firearms Registry, the defendant was not, on 15 August 2019, the holder of a Firearms Licence or Permit in NSW, which authorised the possession, or use of Firearms or Ammunition; nor was the defendant the holder of a Licence or Permit which authorised the possession of a Prohibited Firearm under Schedule 1 of the Firearms Act 1996. Further, there is no record of the rifle having been registered in NSW: exhibit A tab 16.
The defendant was not on 15 August 2019, or at any other time, the holder of a Permit and was not authorised to have in possession a Prohibited Weapon under Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (exhibit A tab 17).
I have included with this evidence of the rifle, magazines and bullets, the evidence of a handgun. There is no charge concerning it. During closing submissions I was told that evidence of a handgun was relevant to consideration of fear and intimidation of the defendant's family associated with his threats to "shoot". There is no evidence that it was an operable firearm. The evidence was not of fear of harm from the handgun. There was no evidence of it after the family moved from the Pitt Street home. The evidence of something resembling a handgun, does not, when considered with the whole of the evidence, satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that it was a provocateur of fear of intimidation as an element of any charge.

[76]

Sequence 14 - possess prohibited weapon without permit - Nunchaku aka Kung Fu Fighting Sticks - s 166 certificate

On 28 August 2019, with permission to search given by Mary, police searched the Beechwood home. Exhibit A/tab 13A contains a disc of the video recording of the search. Sally, Michael and Sara were present. In the upstairs of the house was seen a kitchen/lounge/dining area, and room described as the bedroom of Pauline and the defendant containing the defendant's office. On the ground floor was a bedroom identified as the defendant's bedroom. The video showed wardrobes full of clothing. It is apparent from the presence of those things that the defendant's bedroom was not just a place to sleep but his place of occupation. There was a kitchen downstairs as well. There were bathrooms on both floors. In the garage was shown an extensive gymnasium area including several benches and machines for weight lifting, free weights, dumb bells, a punching head and target punch stand, a punching and kicking padded stand, martial arts sticks, skipping ropes, a stair tread machine, exercise bike, two treadmills and a rowing machine. Police found a laser pointer and Nunchaku in the garage. In the defendant's upstairs office was a bookshelf on which a grey box was stored. The box contained a taser in the form of a mobile phone.
In 2016 Peter looked through a top desk draw when he was studying in his fathers office. He found a black metal object and when he pressed a button on it, it shot a green light. There being no expert certificate that the laser pointer is a prohibited weapon. The prosecution concedes that it cannot succeed on the Sequence 13 charge; In relation to the Sequence 13 charge I find the defendant not guilty.
Peter informed police that the nunchaku was a gift to him from the defendant in 2010. Expert police evidence is that the nunchaku is a prohibited weapon.
In his statement made 10 April 2020 (exhibit A tab 15) Senior Constable Hay, expert Forensic Firearms Examiner, described the nunchaku as constructed of two foam covered plastic tubes approximately 302 mm in length and 34 mm in diameter, jointed by an 8 link mental chain. In his unchallenged expert opinion, Senior Constable Hay opined that the nunchaku are a prohibited weapon as described in Clause 2(16) of Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998.
The defendant was not on 15 August 2019, or at any other time, the holder of a Permit and was not authorised to have in possession a Prohibited Weapon under Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (exhibit A tab 17).
Peter said that in late 2015 when he went into his fathers office he was looking through what he thought were watch boxes. In a grey box amongst them he found what looked like a Nokia phone. He put it back. It is not in contest that the mobile phone in a grey box seized during the Police search and found by Peter is the subject of police expert evidence identifying it as a taser: T 257. 26. Later when at the Beechwood Avenue property Peter wanted to get USBs off a shelf in his fathers office/mothers bedroom when his father, the defendant, was not home. When he got to the shelf he noticed the same grey box and he looked at the Nokia phone more closely. He said that he realised it was a taser because he saw buttons on the side, the battery charger, and that it was not a normal phone. It had two metal dots on the bottom. He heard his father come home so he packed it away.
The taser of the appearance of a mobile phone, is established on police expert evidence to be a KELON K95 hand-held defence, usable as an anti-personnel device and a prohibited weapon. It was in working order. In his statement 10 April 2020 (exhibit A tab 15) Senior Constable Hay, expert Forensic Firearms Examiner described the taser as a KELON K95 hand-held defence or anti-personal device. On his inspection, the battery was discharged but after recharging with the accompanying charging lead, the taser was found to be in working order. Senior Constable Hay described it as designed to administer an electric shock on contact. He described its operation requiring the operator to push it against the target and activating the firing switch to discharge and electrical current through the target. In his unchallenged expert opinion Senior Constable Hay described the taser as a Prohibited Weapon as described in Clause 2(18) of Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act.
The defendant was not on 15 August 2019, or at any other time, the holder of a Permit and was not authorised to have in possession a Prohibited Weapon under Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (exhibit A tab 17).

[81]

Count 26 - On 15 August 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Pauline with the intention of causing her to fear physical and mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

In opening the Crown described the specific act as saying to Pauline "I should kill you for what you've done"/"I should kill you", when in the car, near to home.
Mary's evidence of the events of the 15th of August 2019 was consistent with the following evidence of Pauline. An extra detail is that Mary recalled that in the morning, before school, Peter had asked if he could stay at home on a school day because he did not feel well. Pauline had asked the defendant if it was okay. The defendant became angry with Pauline saying things like "you don't care about his education": T 190. 44. Mary said the argument became more vicious and she became scared because she realised that Sara and herself were to attend university that day and that Peter and Ann were going to school which would leave Pauline alone at home with the defendant. So Sara and Mary came up with a plan that Mary would go to her morning classes, starting at 9 am and Sara would go to her afternoon classes. In that way one of them would be at home throughout the day. That is what happened.
Throughout the defendant driving Peter and Ann to school and Mary to university the defendant was arguing with and threating to kill Pauline. When she arrived at university, allowing for 20 - 30 minutes for the defendant to drive Pauline to the Beechwood Avenue home, Mary telephoned Sara and organised for Sara to call Pauline's phone after 20 minutes, as Mary put it, "just so we could make sure that, you know, mum's alive and she's answered her phone.": T 191. 11.
After Mary's class, when the defendant and Pauline dropped Sara at university, Mary entered the car and was driven home. She said that it was "dead silent" within the car. When they got home she could see marks on Pauline's face. She asked Pauline whether the defendant had hit her but Pauline would not answer. She stayed close to Pauline. At 2:30 pm, the defendant came out of his office and asked Pauline to go with him to pick up Peter and Ann from school. Mary asked if Pauline could stay at home to help with an assignment but the defendant said no, so Pauline went.
At around 3:40 pm (this very precise evidence is given at T 191. 25 - 46), Pauline telephoned Mary and told her that she had been "kicked out of the car" but was walking home. At that point, Mary heard the defendant arrive home with the car so the call was termination. The defendant banged the door open on entering the house and was screaming "I'm going to kill this bitch"
When the defendant entered his bedroom (downstairs) and Pauline had not returned home, Mary went to speak to Ann and Peter who told her that Pauline had got out of the car. The defendant continued shouting and saying he was going to kill Pauline. Whilst he was in his office (upstairs) Mary called Pauline and told her not to come home, "that if you come back, he said, he's going to kill you": T 192. 1.
The defendant left his office and was looking to see if Pauline was home. Peter started to cry and when Mary comforted him the defendant said "what up bitch, want me to smash your head in": T 192. 9.
The defendant left with Peter in the car to see if they could find Pauline. In the defendant's absence, Mary called Vikram and asked him to finish work early so he could go to Pauline. The defendant telephoned asking Mary and Ann to walk around and see if they could find Pauline. Mary and Ann pretending to look for Pauline but called her to warn her. The defendant, Peter, Mary and Ann all returned to the home. The defendant then made each of them send messages to Pauline asking her to return home.
Then the defendant said that he was going to go to the police station and Mary said she would go with him. Before arriving at the police station the defendant went to Greystanes shopping centre where he asked Mary to ring Pauline. Pauline did not answer because she had been warned by Mary. The defendant asked Mary to leave a message for Pauline pleading for her to come home, which she did. As she was hanging up, the defendant shoved her right arm really hard, and said to Mary "you should have fucking cried". He grabbed her right arm and shook it and said "you need to fucking cry to show that you are worried". When Mary said that she was worried but did not need to cry she tried to move to the left hand side of the car but she could not loosen his grip on her right arm. She could see people walking by so she shouted loudly "let - let go of me, don't touch me". The defendant told her to "shut the fuck up" and to stop screaming. Next Mary pretending to participate in a search of the bathroom of the Greystanes shopping centre for Pauline. Then the defendant took them to Stockland Merrylands where Mary had pretended to search in the female bathrooms.
During this time, Mary knew that her mother was in a motel and Vikram was helping her but she did not tell that to the defendant. Vikram took $1,000 to Pauline at the motel: Paragraph 12 of Vikram Police Statement 24 November 2020; Exhibit M.
The defendant parked at Merrylands Council, opposite Merrylands Police Station where he made Mary telephone his friend, Detective Sergeant, Kyle Whiting. He instructed Mary to tell the Detective Sergeant that Pauline was missing. Then the defendant took the phone from Mary and spoke directly to Detective Sergeant Whiting. He told her that he and Pauline had had an argument, that Pauline had walked out of the house and had not come back. Detective Sergeant Whiting advised him that if he was afraid that Pauline would hurt herself, he should go to the police and inform them of that and that they would track her mobile phone.
After this the defendant drove Mary firstly to the Beechwood Avenue home then to university to pick up Sara. On the evening of the 15th of August 2019, the defendant drove Mary and Sara to Merrylands police station. There he reported Pauline missing. Mary and Sara were able to catch the attention of nearby police officers and inform the of what had really occurred.
Later that night, Mary accompanied police to the Beechwood Avenue property and, as an adult resident of the home, consented to police searching and they obtained the rifle in the brown leather bag from a wardrobe. Mary identified the rifle from the photographs in Exhibit A, as the rifle which she had seen in their homes before. During her DVEC, Mary said that the defendant had never threatened her whilst holding the rifle. His spoken threats did include threats to shoot her such as "I'll shoot you" or "I'll shoot you in the head".
In her DVEC (Exhibit E/E3), Sara's evidence, consistently with the evidence of Pauline and of Mary, was that arguing started in the morning before driving the children to school. She said that a subject of the defendant's screaming at Pauline involved his belief that she had cheated on him. She said that she stayed in her bedroom pretending to be tired, so that she could be at home in order to protect her mother, Pauline. Consistently with the evidence of Mary, she described their plan was to share the day of their attendances at university so that one of them remained home to protect Pauline. She told the defendant that she would study at home. When the defendant and Pauline returned at about 9:30 am, from driving Peter and Ann to school and Mary to university, she went to the window because she could hear from outside on the drive, the defendant screaming very loudly and growling at Pauline. She returned to bed and again pretended to be asleep. She heard the defendant come in and close the door but did not hear Pauline come in. A few minutes later she heard the defendant open the door for Pauline who ran upstairs and locked herself in the toilet where she was vomiting. At this time Sara left her room in order to try to keep the defendant away from Pauline.
Sara's evidence of the afternoon and evening, of the defendant searching for Pauline as if she was a missing person (pretending because she knew that Pauline was okay but had run away) and of the defendant driving past a park in Merrylands looking for Pauline and ultimately what occurred at the Merrylands Police Station is consistent with the evidence of Mary. Sara was with Mary when they gained the attention of a female police officer whist the defendant was at the counter reporting Pauline to be a missing person. The female officer took Mary and Sara into a separate room where they told her that Pauline was at a haven and of theirs' and their siblings' concern for her safety.
Peter's evidence of the events of the 15th of August 2019 was consistent with the evidence of Pauline, Mary, Sara and Ann. Peter provided detailed evidence of what occurred during the car trip home from school. He said the defendant was driving, Pauline was a passenger in the front seat and Ann and he sat behind. He was sitting in what was the third row of seats in the family's people mover style car. The second row of seats immediately behind the front seats faced backwards. The third row faced forward. He said that when the defendant was arguing with Pauline he aggressively grabbed her chin to make her look at him. This caused Peter to sit up and move forward to make sure that the defendant did not punch Pauline. Peter said that "I believe" the defendant told Pauline to get out of the car. When Pauline tried to put her seatbelt back on, the defendant slapped her hand away and said "no", get out of the car: T 265. 4. Peter recalled that Pauline did get out of the car at the top of Beechwood Avenue, which location is described elsewhere in the evidence as an intersection with Rosewood Street. At the Beechwood Avenue home he recalled the defendant saying "don't let her back in". The defendant was speaking to both Peter and Ann. Peter then telephoned Pauline and said to her "you're out, just go, don't come back": T 269. 29. He said that, after the defendant had left for the police station, with Mary and Sara, he and Ann were at home alone, Vikram arrived, informed them of events and drove Peter and Ann to the Voyager Hotel in Minchinbury, to meet Pauline.
Pauline's evidence was that at about the time of commencement of school on 15 August 2019, the defendant was driving and she was passenger in the car as they returned from having dropped their children, Peter and Ann, at school at Westmead. They were arguing. The defendant stopped the car at the corner of Rosewood and Beechwood Avenue. In her DVEC Pauline said that at that time the defendant said to her "I should kill you for what you've done". Pauline responded "can we go home". Then the defendant turned and with his hand (on the DVEC Pauline demonstrated with her right hand but said the defendant used his left hand) palm vertical and finders at 90 degrees, he pushed his fingers in a stabbing motion into the side of her neck (In the DVEC whilst indicating the right side of her neck) Pauline informed Constable Hepburn that there was a mark near her Adams apple. She said that when the defendant was pushing his hand into her neck it was painful and made it hard for her to breath. Pauline said that she felt scared, her heart was racing and she moved away so that he did not have as much access. Her evidence is that they defendant continued arguing but he did drive them home.
Pauline exited the car first, the defendant passed to in front of her, went into the house and locked the flyscreen door, then the door. Pauline was standing outside. The defendant told her to leave. Having tried unsuccessfully to get into the house by going around the side of the house, Pauline returned to the front of the house just as the defendant opened the front door. She asked to be let in and told the defendant that she needed to go to the bathroom. He responded "go to the bathroom and leave. I don't want to hurt you." Pauline vomited in the bathroom and stayed there for about half an hour. When she came out Sara spoke to her. Pauline tried to ignore the defendant as the day progressed.
Constable Hepburn recorded two Child Interviews with Ann on 16 August 2019: exhibit E/E4(i) and E4(ii). Ann said that the defendant and Pauline picked her and her brother Peter up from school at about 3:15 pm. On the way home to Beechwood Avenue they were arguing and the defendant, as he had regularly done, angrily berated Pauline about having been unfaithful to him. Ann said the defendant was screaming at Pauline and he "like, touched her chin". On this happening, Peter got out of his seat and said "don't touch her". The defendant kept screaming at Pauline. Ann recalled the defendant stopping the car and telling Pauline to get out. Ann recalled that the defendant said to Pauline "don't make me hit you on your throat". She got out of the car. The defendant speed off to the Beechwood Avenue home with Peter and Ann in the car.
Ann managed to surreptitiously record part of the argument during this car journey. Exhibit K is four short recordings of the argument in the car obtained by Ann. The recordings include the defendant shouting at Pauline his belief of her having been unfaithful of "being betrayed" and of "fucking with other guys". He screamed of his "fucking hurt" he is heard saying "I'll pull up and pull you out of the fuckin car. What did it mean to you" (in the context of the argument meaning her being unfaithful). Pauline is heard trying to appease the defendant. As with other recordings of his arguments with Pauline, the defendant referred to her having been unfaithful (30 years before) when they were engaged. At one point he shouted "fucking mean to you telling him I'm your fiancé and then fucking him after I'm gone…..what did it mean to you? Don't make me hit you in the neck Pauline. I'm sick and tired. What did it mean to you? What, what did it mean to you? Your telling the guy I'm this is my fiancé. And then you fuck him what did that mean to you?". The defendant said to Pauline he did not want her at home and he would not let her in. He said he should not have let her in that morning.
Ann told Constable Hepburn that Pauline appeared to be afraid. She had sunken into her seat in the car. Ann was afraid also. Ann was then 16 years of age. She was in year 11 at school. She was 18 years of age at the time of giving oral evidence in court. Ann's evidence, which was consistent with that or Mary and Sara, is that in the evening of the 15th of August 2019, the defendant drove off with Mary and Sara. She remained at home with Peter. Vikram came to the Beechwood Avenue home and drove Ann and Peter to Minchinbury. That's where police recorded their Child Interviews.
Of making her escape from the car, Pauline said that she was fearful, as she put it in her DVEC "….I thought it's not going to end well, and I didn't want the kids to see anything." So she detoured to Central Gardens, Greystanes and hid in the bathrooms.
When Constable Hepburn asked Pauline why she ended up running away on that afternoon, she said that it was "probably" because the defendant had said to her "I should kill you" although, she added that he had said that to her many times in the course of their 30 years of marriage. Again, the evidence confirms the perennial underlying theme of the defendant's arguing with Pauline, being his belief that she cheated on him. To Constable Hepburn's question as to what the arguments over the course of their marriage were "around", she answered "….he thinks that I've cheated on him, and I haven't. And his injuries, umm, ailments he blames on me." She said that the defendant accuses Pauline of having ruined his life and throughout their marriage, he had always thought that.
Whist at Merrylands police station, the defendant spoke to Sergeant Phillip Ranson of his belief that Pauline was having an affair. He appeared upset and said to Sergeant Ranson words to the effect "what should I do? Should I just kill her or kill the both of us": Statement of Sargent Ranson 20 January 2020 exhibit A Tab 1.
Constable Halls, at Merrylands Police Station, observed Sara and Mary standing behind the defendant as he reported Pauline to be missing. She noticed them shaking their heads whilst looking directly at her, with tears in their eyes. When she spoke to them, they whispered and asked for Constable Hall to keep her voice down. Constable Halls observed Sara and Mary to appear to be distressed, shaking furiously and continuing to tell her to keep her voice down so "he doesn't hear us". They subsequently informed her that Pauline was not missing but rather at a friends house in an attempt to escape from the defendant. Mary telephoned Pauline and Constable Halls spoke to Pauline briefly, confirming that she was fine and well. Constable Halls heard Sara and Mary repeatedly asking Pauline "what should we tell the police? Should we tell them all of it?". They told Constable Hall that if the defendant knew that they were speaking to her, he would kill them. They told Constable Halls of an extensive history of physical and emotional domestic violence abuse between the defendant and the rest of their family. They did not go into detail: Statement of Constable Halls, 19 September 2019, exhibit A Tab 2.
Sara and Mary told Constable Matthew Jones of the presence of a firearm kept at the Beechwood home. When Constable Jones asked the defendant of this, he admitted having a rifle at the home. The defendant informed police that it was stored in the cupboard in the office. Constable Jones arrested the defendant: Statement Constable Matthew Jones 4 February 2020 exhibit A tab 6. Senior Constable McCarthy, who was present when the defendant informed Constable Jones of the location of the rifle went to the Beechwood home with Mary and located the rifle in a brown bag along with three magazines which were loaded with ammunition: Statement Senior Constable Bradley McCarthy 25 April 2020 exhibit A tab 8.
On 17 August 2019, Constable Hepburn obtained coloured photographs of 1 x .223 Remington Calabar RUGER model Mini 14 rifle with serial number 182 - 95699, three detachable metal magazines, an assortment of ammunition, one 303 laser pointer, two SAI's and five swords: Statement of Senior Constable Hepburn 26 November 2020 exhibit A tab 4. On 18 August 2019, Constable Hepburn and other officers conducted the search under warrant of the Beechwood home. The video of the search is Exhibit A tab 13A. His statement annexes still photographs of items located during the search including swords and the laser 303 pointer.

[82]

Cross examination of Pauline

In cross examination Pauline said that her leaving the defendant on 15 August 2019 was not planned, she had not notified the defendant and she did not speak to her children about it until she had already left. This is consistent with the evidence of her children.
She agreed that whilst she was the homemaker and she received Centrelink payments, the defendant worked by trading stock from home. He was home most of the time. He drove her and the children everywhere including to school and university because it was not until Sally achieved her driver licence at some point in 2010 (T 83. 34) that anyone other than the defendant in the house could drive.
The children succeeded well academically, Sally and Mary having achieved combined law degrees, Sara being a law student and Peter employed as a Youth Worker at the time of the hearing.
Pauline said the defendant believed he was a person of strong Christian values. The members of the family would say "God bless you" to each other before bed. At each Christmas between 1998 and 2018 the family participated in a Santa Clause photograph. Exhibit 2 contains loving messages on Father's Day and birthday cards for the defendant. Pauline agreed that her message on the 2015 Father's Day card described the defendant as "the greatest man and father in the world and beyond" and her love for him as "eternal".
Pauline denied the suggestion that what she had told police of the physical manner in which her husband had behaved was not true and denied that the defendant had been a loving husband to her and a loving father to the children. She denied that the reason that she spoke to the police was because she wanted to see the defendant lose everything: T 47. 41 - 48. 5.
Pauline agreed that the defendant actually believes that she has been unfaithful with other men. When it was put to her that the defendant believes that Pauline cheated on him when she was 3 months pregnant with Mary, she answered "he always accused me of infidelity. I was not cheating on Charles at all.": T 48. 36 - 39. She said with regard to a time in 1993, when the defendant was working for a juice company in Thornleigh and away from their residence; that he made the suggestion that if he had opened the door to the house he would have seen her being unfaithful with another man. The defendant did not come into the house that day. These allegations were first made by him to her many years after 1993.
Whilst there is not much relevance in the point, but for the dignity of the parties, I include that, Pauline denied ever having cheated on the defendant.
Pauline said that the defendant's illnesses included thyroid issues, a blood pressure condition and an injury to his right shoulder.

[88]

Defendant's Presentation in Court.

During the trial, the defendant sat on a chair in the dock with his hands on top of his single Canadian crutch and his forehead resting on his hands. He also spent quite some time with his head elevated from his hands and observing the proceedings. There were extensive periods of him sobbing. On the occasions on which he stood, he raised himself slowly, using the assistance of his crutch and the woodwork of the dock around him. On the occasion that he exited the court room, to avoid observing, a portion of the recorded evidence, he walked with a slow gait the 10m to the door. His right arm and elbow were supported by his support person and his walking was in very short strides.
In Exhibit A, at tab 10, is the statement made 14 August 2020 by Constable Idrisoglu. The Constable says that at noon on the 12th of June 2020, at Stockland's Mall Merrylands, when he was off duty, he observed the defendant (at [5]) "walking unaided with any device or object, and unassisted by any other person, he wasn't hunched over and at no time during my interaction with him did he appear to struggle to walk (at [6]). I found his behaviour strange; I've had many interactions with the accused while working station shifts at Merrylands Police Station and know that he reports three (3) times per week as per his current bail conditions. Each time the accused walked into Merrylands Police Station, I saw that he walked with a severe limp and a cane. He always appeared hunched forward, hobbling or limping. It appeared that he had great difficulty getting around. The accused would often cry about how the police had ruined his life and he appeared sickly and decrepit on each occasion." Constable Idrisoglu took a few seconds of video of the accused walking on the level surface of the shopping centre, from behind. The defendant is depicted to walk at a normal pace, not quickly, and in the style of a swagger. After concluding the recording on his mobile phone, Constable Idrisoglu observed the defendant walk down approximately 30 steps without holding the railing for support. He then observed the defendant cross McFarlane Street, Merrylands.
As I informed the parties, it is not available to my lay opinion to discern whether or not the defendant was limping in the video. There is no medical evidence of physical illness, physical impairment or mental impairment in the hearing. The defendant did not give evidence. It is not available to me on the evidence to form an opinion as to his credit, had he given evidence.

[89]

Fear/Context Evidence

The overwhelming evidence of the witnesses was that over the course of the marriage the defendant had regularly struck Pauline and used other types of force when assaulting her. Her evidence was that she had suffered bruising and other injuries numerous times and on one occasion, broken ribs.
Exhibit F is a collection of text messages from mobile phones of Pauline, Sally, Mary, Peter and Ann. I observe that Pauline and her children engaged in a practice of messaged communication monitoring the defendant's anger and the risk of him harming Pauline and that they shared that practice fearful of being heard or seen doing so by him. The messages regularly referred to being able to speak by telephone because the defendant was not present or that they had to cease speaking by telephone because the defendant was coming. Exhibit F is evidence of a sibling wide practice designed for the protection of their mother Pauline and established on their fearful assessment because of the risk of the defendant harming Pauline.
When during evidence in chief, Sally was shown the exhibit 1 family Santa Clause photographs at Christmas with smiling faces (1993 - 2018) she said that her father insisted on keeping up that family tradition. In relation to the endearing messages by Sally, Pauline and the siblings on the defendant's birthday and Fathers' Day cards, Sally answered during cross examination that the defendant liked receiving cards expressing the family's love and affection for him: T 115. 25. In re-examination she said that because of the "constant threat" presented by the defendant, writing the messages of endearment was a "survival tactic" of her's and "….I would not have meant it deep down, not - not all of it. I would have hoped to one day mean it and hoped that - but no. No": T 116. 20.
During cross examination Michael was shown the exhibit 1 Santa photos and the Exhibit 2 Father's Day and birthday cards. He said that if he had not written something "nice" to appease the defendant, the defendant would get "pissed off". He said that he felt compelled to write that which the defendant would not take in a negative way because he was concerned that the defendant would otherwise harm the family. Michael described the defendant as someone who would "break out" if he did not get his own way and gave the illustrative fact that when the defendant was told that Sally and he had actually purchased a home, the defendant became "really angry", which Michael interpreted this as the defendant wanting control.
During her DVEC Sara told police that the defendant had struck her and threatened to kill her on multiple occasions. She said: "from childhood to now there's been a lot of things, um, trying to step in when he is bashing mum to me getting hit from trying to push him away. Um, there was one incident that was really bad, years ago….dad was….hitting mum many, many, times. I lost count. And he came inside and he shoved me and he pushed me onto the couch. And he started hitting me and punching my face. My mum came and she tried kicking him off me. That's when my brother, my brother came at the time. He was really small. He tried jumping on his back to try and get him off me. And he just continued. And my little sister was just screaming. If he can, if he can hit us, he can kill us. That's the thing. And I'm so convinced that he can and he would do that".
Sara told Constable Hepburn that the injuries she and Pauline had suffered were bruises and scratches.
Peter described the defendant, in August 2019 as a large man of weight approximately 100 kgs and of "amazing fitness". He said that as long as he could remember, the defendant had trained one to two times per day. He would do a lot of weight training and martial arts including kung fu and boxing. There was extensive gym equipment in the home including for martial arts training such as Nunchaku and swords as well as weight machines and punching and kicking bags. I have described the equipment when discussing the police search of the property.
Peter had trained in the martial arts since he was 4 years of age. He said that he was not given a choice and was forced to train.
In her DVEC Pauline said that she presently fears that the defendant will track her down and possibly kill her or her children.
Evidence of the defendant's rage, shouting and threats directed at Pauline can be appreciated from tendered recordings; Exhibits H, J and K
Each of his children, called in evidence, said, as did Pauline, that they were fearful of informing police of the defendant's assaults and intimidation upon them. The common evidence was that the defendant had convinced them of his close relations with police, particularly officer Detective Sergeant Kylie Whiting and that he would find out if they reported him. The evidence is overwhelmingly that the defendant was a threateningly controlling individual. Pauline was fearful of being alone with any male in any situation of which the defendant might learn.
Following the 16 August 2016 event of the defendant holding a butchers knife to the throat of Pauline (counts 15, 16 and 17) Mary messaged her boyfriend Vikram of her fear that although the defendant had gone to his office and quietened down: "…..if it gets yeah again I think ill just call the police….i don't know what else to do" (exhibit G pg 3 - 16 August 2016 at 11:13 am). Mary's elder sister Sally was not at home. She was at the College of Law. Exhibit G messages show that Vikram was concerned that Mary be careful. He texted "Mary I'm begging you. Please be safe. Please" (exhibit G pg 4 - 16 August 2016 at 11:17 am). On 18 August 2016 at 1:48 pm, Mary messaged Vikram (exhibit G pg 5) that the defendant was trying to make up for it to Pauline and Mary was concerned for Pauline. She further informed Vikram that when in the kitchen she opened the kitchen draw and on seeing knives, her "stomach completely turned". Mary's following evidence (T 176. 43 - 177. 34) described her extreme fear at that time. Q. And if you go to page 3, at the top of the page, you're again communicating with Viktram and you're indicating that your father is - he's in the office? A. Yes. Q. You speak there of "I think I'll call the police"? A. Yes. Q. Did you? A. No. Q. Why not? A. I was too scared. Dad always threatened us that if we told anyone what was happening, he would kills us all, then kill himself. And again, because of the connections he said that he had, he would find out if we told the police. I couldn't. Q. On page 4, you indicate your first message is, "She's at the College of Law", who are you referring to there? A. My sister, Sally. Q. Further down, "It will be too obvious that I've told her, then he will lash out at me". What are you referring to there? A. If I told my sister to come home from - so if I told my sister to come home because of what had happened, dad would then know that I told her what happened and to - dad would then hit me for telling Sally, so I couldn't tell Sally to come home. Q. Can I take you to the next page and it's dated 18 August 2016. So, it's two days after the event with the knife. And again, tell me if I'm right, because I see the "V" at the top, is this communication with Vikram? A. Yes. Q. Right at the top of the first message, you say this, "This is where he tries to make up for it to mum". Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. What do you mean by that? A. So, after almost every time, not every - most of the time after dad would bash mum, whether it be the same day or the next day, he would say sorry, I won't do it again. But that obviously would happen again. Him making up for it was saying sorry I won't do it again. Q. How was he behaving when he was saying "Sorry, I won't do it again"? A. Sometimes he'd seem apologetic, but he was - was genuinely sorry but then there were a lot of times where it was almost just words to him, and he'd just say it for the sake of saying it.
Vikram (by his statement), who was Mary's partner from 2015, and Mary each gave evidence of their arrangement that if Mary communicated to him the code symbol "V" (which she never in fact did) he was to call police and ambulance. Their evidence was that the code was necessary because the defendant monitored the families mobile phone use. Mary informed Vikram of her fear, of which she also gave evidence, that if the defendant found that she had spoken of his assaults and intimidation to others, he would kill the family.
Vikram's evidence included his observation, when at family events, of Pauline avoiding being alone with other males for fear that the defendant would accuse her of cheating on him and would turn violent against her. He said that when the defendant could see them Pauline would not make eye contact with him and that their spoken conversations were minimal. He described Pauline as appearing, "cautious, fearful and frightened whenever she was alone with someone other than [the defendant]. When she was with [the defendant], Pauline appeared less on edge and rushed.". He observated that after the engagement party for Sally and Michael, the Boujandy children, Michael and a couple of friends returned to the Pitt Street house where he witnessed: "Pauline sitting in corner of the living room of the house; she was looking at the floor the whole time, not talking to anyone. [The defendant] was speaking and occasionally he would look towards Pauline and check on her. [The defendant] also mentioned that he was in the Army and told us his stories about his service. The atmosphere appeared hostile between Pauline and [the defendant]; Pauline seemed scared, reserved and anxious. She was not making eye contact with anyone and anything she did seemed hurried or rushed."
Sally and Michael were to go to Lebanon on the 26th of July 2019, so in that month, Michael and Sally put on a Sunday lunch for the Boujandy family. Mary recalls that Michael and the defendant went for a walk. Later in that week, the defendant, when driving Mary, told her that he did not approve of Michael and that "when he went for a walk with Michael, that Sunday had just passed, that he said to Michael - I'm going to get you done over at Lebanon and make sure you don't come back.": T 184. 5 - 10.
In her DVEC (exhibit E/E2), when describing the event of the morning of the 29th of July 2019 (counts 22, 23 and 24), Mary described her fear caused by the defendants threats and actions in the following terms: "I've gone through this and witnessed things like this my whole life, um, and its not the first time he's made a threat, um, and I feel like there's where he, when he clicks. I don't know what gets to him and he becomes so violence. Like, nothing will stand in the way, and I've tried to intervene, and even whist trying to calm it down, I've gotten hit before, numerous of times. So, um, no, I think he's….he is very capable".
When asked why she had not made reports to police Mary answered "we couldn't. If we were to do that he would have hurt us….he has always said that whatever happens in the house stays in the house….one time my brother mentioned that his parents were arguing, that, like, my parents were arguing at school….um, to his teacher and the teacher ended up speaking to my Dad and my brother pretty much got a whooping." Mary said that if any of the family were to speak to a third party then she would think that all of their lives would definitely be in danger.
In her DVEC, Mary also said that the defendant, during their arguing, had blamed Pauline for the marriage of Sally and Michael and he threatened on the 26th of July 2019, the day of their departure, that "I'm just going to kill you all, then I'm going to kill myself".
Exhibit J included four recordings surreptitiously obtained by Sara of the defendant's behaviour on the evening of 29 July 2019. Whereas exhibit J - recording J1 is headed with the timing 7:30 pm, Sara said that she did not return from university until after 9:00 pm and therefore the recording was created after 9 pm. Recordings were obtained after 9 pm, around 10 pm, 10:13 pm and 10:21 pm respectively. There is a constant theme throughout all four recordings, spanning as they do, more than an hour following Sara's return home from university. This was in the late evening; the arguing having commenced 11 hours beforehand in the morning.
The theme was that for the whole of their marriage and indeed as the defendant shouted it "after fucking 40 years now" (Exhibit J/J1) he believed that Pauline had been unfaithful and continued to be. In the recordings he accused her of wanting to have sexual intercourse with a technician two years before moving into the Beechwood Avenue property, sexual intercourse with men she met at Merrylands shops and her work colleague whist she and the defendant were engaged to be married. Throughout the recordings the defendant was shouting and raging and Pauline was speaking quietly, submissively and appeasingly. The furious discussion occurred in the presence of their children, whose voices are heard, Sally, Peter and Sara. Each of them spoke to the defendant, appeasingly and calmly also.
The following selected passages encapsulate the underlying threat to kill Pauline or himself and Pauline maintained in his raging: (Exhibit J/J1 at 2 minutes 33 seconds): "I just want you outta my life. All right. Just understand something, Paul. I can't keep going like this cuz one day I'm gonna lose it and they will lose both of us. Just go fucking live your life. All right. Go find another guy or find some guys that you, all these fucking guys that you fucked was in the shops down at Merrylands huh how many are, how many fucking shops you've gone to in Merrylands and you screwed with them. You tell me how hard is that for you?" (Exhibit J/J4 at 0 minutes 20 seconds): "I should have killed you a long time ago. That was my mistake. I should have either left you or fucking done away with you the minute you fucking slept in my bedroom. So guys, I should have gone in the fucking house and done you over, but you know why I didn't fucking kill you then because I would've lost the kids. So I had to fucking live with the fucking pain of knowing you're in my fucking bed, getting fucked. And I didn't want to lose them because you know why? Because I called you called the police. You're in the right. Cause it doesn't matter. She has rights. It doesn't matter if she's sleeping with someone, else in the bed. Hm. She's like Moses' mom. If, if her husband was to slap her and she calls the police, he'll get locked up. Not her that she's doing the wrong thing. And if you were to call the police back then in those days, what would've happened, they would lock me up. Why? Because everybody wants to fuck you then…Because Sally and Mary-Anne are kept why I got sick all these fucking years because I tried to keep them all together. Then these guys come and you think that stopped you? No. How do you think I feel….How do you think? I feel every time I look at you, I can imagine how you were fucking with other guys. Where was I in your life then? Hmm, where was I? Where was she? When she was a fucking baby on your leg and someone puts his hand on you fucking leg. What did you feel like? Oh, he wants to fuck me. So what that's it? You were trying to fucking screw him. Did you think you had their baby in your hand? He was a fucking baby at fucking Parramatta pool in your hand. And you're trying to show your fucking tits to the guys. Give their attention, you know? And what does he do when we come home? He jumps on my back." [This is a reference to Peter in other evidence] (Exhibit J/J4 at 2 minutes 59 seconds) "…how do you think I can die in peace? You think I can trust you to look after them? What you think I can trust you to look after them?...If you and Mike, you had fucking fucked together. You think you would've told Sally if I didn't come out of the room second; what the hell you think you're doing? What happened? You got carried away was fucking Mikey and that stupid fucking daughter refuse to marry him. [this is a reference to Sally] If I didn't have Sally's, Sarah Jane's friends on my back and the cops, there's no way in the world….I would've let him marry her…."
Following the playing of exhibit J in court, in response to my observation of the defendant's complaints of illness, his counsel said that the references to the defendant's illness were to physical ailments, not mental ailments: T 212. 45 - 47.
Senior Constable Hepburn said that both the defendants sister Dianne and his nephew Tony who were the persons involved in the seditiously obtaining of the video (exhibit A - 20B and 20C) had refused to give police statements.
Senior Constable Hepburn obtained the statement from Dr Alagan (exhibit C). He said that Dr Alagan was very much in support of the defendant and his good standing in the community. It was on the third occasion of meeting with Dr Alagan that she agreed to provide the statement exhibit C.
Senior Constable Hepburn said that he had not obtained a statement from Detective Sargent Kylie Whiting. This is because he does not recall mention having been made of her during the investigation: T 99. 8 - 37.

[90]

Discernment

In closing address, Counsel for the defendant informed the Court that the defence would not advance any submission that any witness called by the prosecution was not a witness of truth and more broadly concerning both the complainants and other witnesses: "I don't seek to question their credibility or the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.": T 323. 34 - 324. 19; email 14 September 2022 in MFI #14.
The defendant made no submission in regard to any witness that the evidence revealed them to be untruthful or unreliable.
The Crown conceded that there is no evidence that the black laser pointer 303 was a prohibited weapon within the elements of the charge pursuant to s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 and that a verdict of not guilty must be entered in relation to the Sequence 13 charge.
I direct a verdict of not guilty to Sequence 13.
The parties agree that Sequence 9, Sequence 10 and Sequence 11 are three separate charges, each of the self loading ammunition magazines being the subject of a separate charge because it was a "firearm part" as described in s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 and a "prohibited weapon" as described in clause 4(4)(b) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998.
In relation to Sequence 14, in 2010, the defendant purchased the Nunchaku as a gift for Peter. Peter's evidence was that they were both to use them for training: T 251. 5 - 10; 252. 40 - 45. The only issue of law raised in relation to the Sequence 14 charge was whether or not, the nunchaku was in the "possession" of the defendant having been purchased for Peter at about his age of 7 or 8 years, Section 4 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 defines "possession" to include any case in which a person knowingly: 1. has custody of the weapon; or 2. has the weapon in the custody of another person; or 3. has the weapon in or on any premises, place, vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether or not belonging to or occupied by the person.
I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant as the occupier of the premises, the controlling adult of the home gymnasium and the principal participant in the acquisition of and use of the gymnasium within the garage at which the nunchaku were found, and himself a user of them in training; was a person knowingly with custody of the weapon. Further, that the nunchaku were at each of the homes of which the defendant was occupier. Accordingly I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that he was in "possession" of the nunchaku within the meaning of the offence.
During closing submissions, the Crown informed the Court, (see s 166(1)(a) of the CP Act) that each of the s 166 matters concerned a separate and not a related or back up offence. The Crown sought a separate verdict in relation to each matter before the Court pursuant to s 166. Counsel for the defendant stated that she could not offer any submission to the contrary, for the purposes of s 166 and s 167; Outline Submission on behalf of the Defendant (MFI 17), at last paragraph, pg 5.
Each of the s 166 matters relates to a separate specific act and often concerning a different person to the principle offence arising from the occasion. In any event, each of them is an allegation of a separate specific offence. In my opinion it would be inappropriate in those circumstances to order that any of the s 166 charges be dismissed. It is in the interests of justice that separate verdicts be entered in relation to each charge, whether or not the defendant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that he committed another indictable offence arising from the event.
Following the conclusion of the evidence and the parties closing addresses, but before delivery of this judgment, the Crown sought to amend the Sequence 21 Charge on which the Crown opened (Crown Case Statement - MFI 2 at [132]) both by adjustment of two years as to the timing of the specific act and by describing a different specific act. Initially the amendment was not opposed by the Counsel for the defendant. The Court entered into correspondence with legal representatives for the parties. Ultimately the Crown conceded that Sequence 21 as it was before the Court pursuant to s 166 CP Act during the running of the hearing, could not be established to the requisite standard of beyond reasonable doubt; and, further, that no amendment could cure the defects: MFI 18.
I direct a verdict of not guilty in relation to H72032147 Sequence 21.
On the whole of the evidence in the special hearing, it is apparent that Pauline's descriptions of the defendant's aggression and violence were measured by her toward the conservative. On the evidence of her children, the defendant's violence toward Pauline and to them was more severe than, on Pauline's evidence alone I would find it to be. During her initial report to police, Pauline provided the following information (DVEC Exhibit E/E1, 16 August 2019): Q: has your husband ever assaulted you before this incident? ["this incident" was the 15 August 2019] A: Yes, he has. Q: Yes. Has he ever assaulted any of your children before this? A: uh, he's hit a couple of them, yes. Q: How's he hit them? A: Um, more shoving. Q: uh-huh. A: and maybe a hit to the face, I think. Q: Okay. A: but I try to block things out.
Pauline then informed police that she did not think the defendant would ever hurt their children. When asked a general question as to how he had behaved toward the family, she answered: "he's been pretty sick lately, he's, um, its been worse." She then referred to it being worse since Sally went overseas on the 26th of July 2019.
But when asked of her fears, Pauline responded affirmatively that she did have fears for the safety of herself and of her children. She told police that she was concerned that since speaking to them, the defendant would track her down and possibly kill her and her children.
Pauline did not give evidence of some charged acts, of which she was the alleged victim. Generally, when that occurred she was not asked about them.
Where a complainant did not give evidence of an offence upon themself; but the offence is truthfully and reliably described in the direct evidence of other witnesses; then, the question of whether or not the Crown has satisfied me of each element of the offence to the high standard of beyond reasonable doubt requires close attention to the evidence and some caution because of, the absence of the complainant's evidence. I have, in each case where the complainant has not given direct evidence of the incident the subject of the Count or other Charge before the Court pursuant to s 166 CP Act, carefully weighed absence of evidence of the complainant, and determined my findings on with the whole of the evidence.

[92]

Count 1/Count 2

Because they occurred on the same occasion, it is convenient to discuss the evidence in counts 1 and 2 simultaneously; however, I give separate consideration to my verdict on each Count.
Pauline, Sally, Mary and Sara gave evidence of this event which occurred between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008 at the Pitt Street Home, following Sally having attended her friend Laura's house to practice drama for school. The defendant's rage emanated from his displeasure that Sally had asked for permission to go to Laura's house whilst in the presence of Laura and not "to the side", plus that at Laura's home her brother who was ten years older than her also resided. The evidence of Pauline, Sally, Mary and Sara was consistent and credible. There was no evidence to the contrary. As already observed, Sally complained of this event to her friend Ms Garner.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that after returning home and some discussion in the lounge room, the defendant smashed down the bathroom door and set upon his naked 16 year old daughter Sally who was in the shower. The shower curtain was ripped down and Sally wrapped it around herself for modesty. In those circumstances Sally was not able to attempt to block the defendant's actions because her hands were securing the shower curtain. The defendant punched Sally on the face with a closed fist multiple times and slammed her head into the tiled shower wall whilst shouting threats to kill her. The defendant shouted at Pauline that if she did not leave the bathroom he would cut Sally up, which threat Sally rightfully understood to be a threat to kill her. These events occurred despite Pauline and the children begging the defendant to stop.
In relation to Count 1 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately punched Sally multiple times and slammed her head into the shower wall and that Sally did not consent to the application of such force.
On the limited evidence available, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and find the defendant committed the Count 1 offence.
In relation to Count 2 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant shouted the threats with the intention of causing Sally to fear physical and mental harm. Albeit not an element of the offence I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Sally did actually fear physical and mental harm from the threat that he would kill and cut her up. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available the defendant committed the Count 2 offence.

[93]

Count 3/Count 4

It is convenient to deal with the evidence of counts 3 and 4 simultaneously because the counts arise from events occurring together. However, I consider my verdict to each count separately.
Between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, shortly following Sally's trial Higher School Certificate exams, Sally skipped school to attend a MacDonald's store with two friends. She was retrieved from there by the defendant and Pauline who then drove to the school, which Mary also attended, to pick up Mary before intending to travel home.
Sally's evidence of the event commences while Pauline was absent from the car. Pauline and Mary gave evidence of what they witnessed on their approach to and return at the car. Each of Sally, Pauline and Mary was a witness of credit. There was no evidence to the contrary.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the following course of events. Whilst Pauline was absent, retrieving Mary, the defendant left the drivers seat and opened the side sliding door to where Sally was sitting behind. Whilst shouting at her "slut" and threats to kill her, the defendant struck her on the face multiple times by hand slap and on both sides of the face multiple times by closed fist punches. The assault wasn't short, it lasted the time of Pauline being absent from the vehicle and returning to the vehicle where the striking continued for an undefined period. An outstanding feature of the evidence of Sally was that the defendant threatened that if she did not lean forward in her seat in the car so that he could hit her about the face, he would kill her. He demanded that she not look at him. These facts struck me not just for the cowardness of the defendant but also for the terror inflicted by him upon Sally such that she had to fight the urge to move back or flinch in order to protect herself from punches which she could not look at him, she could not see and to sit forward whilst suffering those strikes to her face.
In relation to Count 3, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that by his threats the defendant intimidated Sally with the intention of causing Sally to fear physical or mental harm and indeed so much so that she succumbed to his threats out of fear by sitting forward so that the assault upon her face by the defendant would continue. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 3 offence.
As to Count 4, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately slapped and punched Sally about the face multiple times over an extended time and that Sally did not consent to the application of such force. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 4 offence.

[94]

Count 5/Count 6

It is convenient to discuss the evidence of these two counts simultaneously because they arise out of the same occasion. However, I consider my verdict on each Count separately.
Only Sally and Mary were asked questions and gave evidence concerning these events. They gave credible evidence. There was no evidence to the contrary.
Following return to the Pitt Street home after the event of counts 3 and 4, the defendant told Sally to sit on the couch and that he was going to deal with her. He told Pauline and her siblings to get out of the house. At this point Sally was scared that the defendant was going to kill her. The defendant moved away and returned to Sally who was then alone on the couch. He waved an electric razor in front of her face and yelled at her "slut" for having entered the car with boys outside the MacDonald's store, as he said he had been told occurred and which Sally denied to him. He held the razor close to her eye and between her eye and her hair line and threatened to shave her hair off so that no boys would look at her. He punched Sally with closed fists in the face. In consequence of the slapping and punching to her face in counts 4 and 6, Sally was unable to attend school for one week because of the visible bruising and swelling to her face.
In relation to Count 5 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant used the electric shaver as an offensive instrument or weapon because it was a dangerous thing which he made use of for offensive purposes; but in any event, in the circumstances he used the shaver intentionally with his threat to shave off her hair being an offensive purpose. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant, by use of the shaver in that way, intimidated Sally intending, within the elements of s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 to cause her to fear physical or mental harm. Although it is not a necessary element of Count 5, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant in fact caused Sally to actually fear physical or mental harm by that intimidation. I am, on the limited evidence available, satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the Count 5 offence.
In relation to Count 6, the defendant's threats to shave Sally's head and to kill her; and, if it be necessary to find a separate intimidation for the purposes of the separate Count 6; then the threat to kill her, was intimidation by the defendant upon Sally committed with the intention of causing Sally to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not a necessary element of Count 6; nevertheless I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Sally did actually fear physical or mental harm in consequence of the threat to kill her in addition to the threat to shave her head.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 6 offence.

[95]

Count 7/Count 8/Count 9

It is convenient to consider simultaneously the evidence of the single occasion out of which these three counts arise. However, I consider my verdict on each Count separately.
Pauline, the complainant the subject of Count 9 was not asked questions concerning it and did not give evidence of this occasion. Sally and Mary only gave evidence of this event. Again, they were witnesses of credit whose evidence displayed a reliable and generally consistent recollection. Their There is no evidence to the contrary.
On the occasion of the defendant's birthday on 22 November 2010, the family had baked him a birthday cake and sung him Happy Birthday. The defendant became enraged because the family had not purchased a cake for his birthday. He caused Pauline to follow him to the room of the house known as the office. Standing outside, Sally and Mary could hear his shouting and Mary said that she heard noises which she described as "hitting".
There is no evidence of any person actually seeing the defendant strike Pauline whilst in the office. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant struck Pauline whilst in the office. I arrive at this conclusion whilst accepting Mary gave truthful evidence of her belief based on her interpretation of the sound which she heard. In my opinion, that evidence does not satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt she heard may have been a sound caused by something other than the defendant hitting Pauline.
Sally and Mary ran into the office. I repeat that they did not see the defendant strike Pauline. Mary recalled the defendant holding Pauline by the shoulders when he told Sally and Mary to leave the office or he would shoot them. After the passage of 12 years, I accept the evidence of Sally and Mary as given truthfully and accurately according to their recollections. Sally did not give evidence of the defendant holding Pauline by the shoulders. Sally did give evidence of the defendant's threat that she and Mary leave the office or he would shoot them.
Whilst bearing in mind that there is no evidence of the complainant Pauline, and that Sally did not give evidence of the defendant holding Pauline by the shoulders; I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied the physical force of holding Pauline by the shoulders and Pauline did not consent to the application of that force. In so finding, I consider the difference of recollection of the observation of that holding between the evidence of Sally and of Mary characteristic of the truthfulness of their evidence based on careful recount of recollection and that Mary's evidence of that recollection was confidently given.
In relation to Count 7, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intimidated Sally by threatening to shoot her if she did not leave the office and did so with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt from the circumstances of Sally leaving the office and her mother with the enraged defendant, that Sally did actually in fact suffer fear of physical or mental harm.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 7 offence.
In relation to Count 8, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intimidated Mary by speaking to her the threat to leave the office or he would shoot her and that he did so with the intention of causing Mary to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mary did actually fear physical or mental harm which fear caused her to retreat from the office leaving Pauline alone with the defendant who was holding Pauline by the shoulders.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available that the defendant committed Count 8.
In relation to Count 9, on the evidence of Sally and Mary that the defendant took Pauline to the office alone and on their entry threatened them to leave or he would shoot them, in combination with the confident recollection of Mary that the defendant was holding Pauline's shoulders; I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he deliberately applied that physical force to Pauline's body and Pauline did not consent to that application of force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 9 offence.

[97]

Count 10

Between 31 December 2013 and 1 January 2015, the defendant and Pauline had returned to the Pitt Street home with underwear which they had purchased for Peter.
The Crown prosecutes this allegation of intimidation of Sara but Sara did not give evidence. She was not asked questions and did not give evidence concerning it. Sally, Mary and Ann gave direct evidence of the threat, upon which the Crown relied for the intimidation.
Sally and Mary heard the defendant say words to Sara to the effect that if she did not shut up he would cut her up and feed her to the pigs. Ann was not in the same room but her evidence of what she recalled hearing was consistent with that of Sally and Mary. Ann recalled the defendant saying to Sara that he would feed her to the pigs.
All three of them gave evidence of an argument in which Sara became involved with the defendant. Not surprisingly after the passage of more than 7 years, their evidence is not identical as to all things which were said in the argument. The differences can be attributed to recollection over time. Those facts were not essential facts which the Crown was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
On the whole of the evidence the defendant was enraged a Pauline because he was accusing her of having looked at the pictures of male models on the packets of underwear which they had purchased for Peter. Sally recalled that the defendant punched Pauline, pointed his finger in her face and slapped her whilst in the kitchen. Mary also recalled the defendant punching Pauline on the face, shouting at her the accusation that she looked at male model pictures on the underwear packaging. Mary and Ann recalled that the defendant threatened that he would set Pauline on fire. All three of them recalled Sara being in the presence of the defendant and involved in that argument.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on that occasion the defendant did threaten Sara that if she did not stay out of the argument by shutting up that he would cut her up and feed her to the pigs.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant intimidated Sara by threatening to chop her up and feed her to the pigs if she did not refrain from attempting to defend her mother and that he did so with the intention of causing Sara physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence I am satisfied that Sara did actually fear physical or mental harm as a result of that threat.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 10 offence.

[98]

Sequence 1/Sequence 2/Sequence 3

It is convenience to deal with the evidence simultaneously in relation to Sequences 1, 2 and 3 of the common occasion in January 2013 out of which the charges arise. However, I consider my verdict on each Count separately.
Whilst the Crown case on Sequence 1 is that the defendant assaulted Pauline, Pauline was not asked questions about and did not give evidence of this event. Whilst the Crown case on Sequence 2 is that the defendant assaulted Sara and on Sequence 3 that the defendant intimidated Sara, the Crown did not ask Sara questions about and she did not give evidence of this occasion.
Direct evidence of the event was given confidently, based on his accurate recollection, by Peter who was about 11 years of age at the time. Direct evidence of a vague recollection of this event was given by Ann who was only about 8 years of age at the time. There was no evidence to the contrary.
Mary gave evidence of complaints made to her and Sally (who did not give evidence of this event) by Pauline and Sara. That evidence was admissible pursuant to s 66(2) Evidence Act. The evidence of complaint is consistent with the direct evidence of Peter and Ann. It is some evidence both supportive of the event described by Peter, having occurred and of the truth of the evidence of Peter and Ann. Mary also gave circumstantial evidence of her seeing bruises and swelling on the face and arms of Pauline and Sara. Mary's evidence of bruises and swelling is evidence corroborative of them having been assaulted and is consistent with the direct evidence of Peter and Ann of those assaults.
On a hot day in the January 2013 school holidays, after the defendant, Pauline, Sara and Ann had returned to the Pitt Street home from the family's outing to public swimming pools, Sally and Mary had gone to church and to buy ice creams. Whilst Sally and Mary were out, Peter heard slapping sounds from the office and on his entry he saw the defendant repeatedly slapping Pauline. He described the slaps as hard and loud.
Peter observed Sara use the defendant's phone to telephone Sally and Mary. Mary's evidence was of about 20 missed phone calls and that on her calling home, the defendant had told her all was well.
Peter said that the defendant stormed into the kitchen where he and Sara were and said to Sara that if she called the police he would kill her. The defendant then pushed Sara onto a couch and started punching her with his fist closed. When Pauline tried to stop the defendant, the defendant "was laying into both of them".
In the context of describing the closed fist punching of Sara, the evidence as given by Peter satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that his meaning of "laying into" conveyed that the defendant was punching Pauline on the couch.
Peter who was then 11 years of age jumped on the defendant's back and pulled him off his sister Sara and mother Pauline. Peter's description is consistent with Ann's unsophisticated recollection, attributable to her youth at the time, that the defendant was "bashing my mother and my sister" when Peter jumped on the defendants back to stop him. She recalled that Peter was crying.
Exercising the caution which I earlier indicated I would apply in relation to the evidence of any Count or other Charge before the Court pursuant to s 166 CP Act when the complainant did not give evidence; I nevertheless found Peter and Ann's evidence to be credible such as to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of the accuracy of Peter's evidence. As I have said, the complaint evidence favour acceptance of Peter's evidence of recollection and Mary's circumstantial evidence of bruising, whilst not of itself direct evidence of actual assaults, is consistent with those assaults having occurred.
In relation to Sequence 1 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in January 2013 the defendant deliberately repeatedly slapped Pauline hard and punched her with a closed fist and that Pauline did not consent to the application of such force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Sequence 1 offence.
In relation to Sequence 2 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in January 2013, the defendant deliberately pushed Sara and then punched Sara with a closed fist and that Sara did not consent to the application of such force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 2 offence.
In relation to Sequence 3 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in January 2013 the defendant intimidated Sara by threatening to kill Sara if she called the police with the intention of causing Sara to fear physical or mental harm.
Whilst is it not an element of this offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Sara did actually fear physical or mental harm as a result of that threat because, it was not an out of the blue situation that Sara was so fearful of telling persons outside of the family of the defendant's violence, and because that she called Sally and Mary when she had the defendant's phone, rather than call the police. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Sequence 3 offence.

[99]

Count 11/Count 12/Count 13

It is convenient to deal simultaneously with the evidence of counts 11, 12 and 13, because they arise out of a single occasion on 27 July 2014. However, I consider the evidence separately in my deliberation of verdict on each Count.
Pauline, Sally, Mary, Michael, Sara and Peter gave credible evidence which was not identical but which was consistent as to the happening of each of the specific acts the subject of the counts and of the surrounding circumstances. There was no evidence to the contrary.
On that day, the Boujandy family had taken a cake to lunch at Michael's parents' home. The defendant became enraged because he sensed that he had been disrespected, when Michael's sister delivered the first piece of cake to her father, rather than to the defendant. The defendant caused the Boujandy family to leave immediately afterward, all witnesses describing his visible rage at his sense of having been disrespected. They left in two cars. The defendant drove Pauline, Mary and Sara and Michael drove himself, Peter and Ann to the Pitt Street home. On arrival at Pitt Street, the defendant got Mary and Sara out of the family car and drove off with Pauline.
Pauline said that the defendant whilst in the car said that he was going to kill her and that he was "hitting" her.
On the whole of the evidence of the circumstances of the event on 27 July 2014, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant made that threat and employed that force against her whilst in the car.
On return to the Pitt Street home the defendant took Pauline into the garage. Sally was listening from the other side of the garage door. Others could hear the defendant arguing with Pauline in the garage. The consistent evidence is that whilst in the garage the defendant threatened to kill Pauline. Pauline's evidence included that he said "I should kill you" and held a screwdriver to her neck. On entering the garage Sally saw the defendant holding the screwdriver to Pauline's neck. Whilst Pauline and Sally did not give evidence of physical harm; Michael, Mary and Sara all gave credible evidence of a red mark on Pauline's neck seen by them when Pauline left the garage.
In relation to Count 11, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 July 2014 the defendant used the screwdriver as an offensive weapon, a screwdriver being a dangerous weapon and his use of pushing it against Pauline's neck being adaption of it from its normal use for offensive purposes, and in the circumstances of him pressing the screwdriver to Pauline's neck and speaking threats of killing her, the defendant intended its use or threatened use for offensive purposes. I am beyond reasonable doubt, satisfied that the defendant used the screwdriver as an offensive instrument or weapon with the intention of committing the indictable offence of intimidating Pauline and with the intention of causing Pauline fear and/or mental harm: s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. Whilst is it not an element of Count 11, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Pauline did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 11 offence.
In relation to Count 12 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 July 2014 the defendant deliberately applied physical force to the body of Pauline by hitting her when in the car, holding her against the wall in the garage and pushing a screwdriver against her neck such as to leave a red mark and that Pauline did not consent to the application of such force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Court 12 offence.
In relation to Count 13, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 July 2014 the defendant intimidated Pauline by threats to kill her in the surrounding circumstances of counts 11 and 12, with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst is it not an element of the offence I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 13 offence.

[101]

Count 15/Count 16/Count 17

I deal with the evidence of counts 15, 16 and 17 simultaneously, because they arise out of a single occasion. However, I consider the evidence separately in my determination of my verdict in relation to each Count.
Pauline and Mary gave credible and consistent evidence of the subject events on 16 August 2016. There was no evidence to the contrary.
Mary remembered that timing because it was 4 days after her 21st birthday on 12 August 2016. Pauline said that on that date, on return from Merrylands shops, whilst the defendant was driving the car, he punched her in the face both by a left backhand slap and by a closed left hand fist. On arrival at the Pitt Street driveway, Pauline got out of the car and ran to escape the defendant but at a distance of about four properties he reached her and dragged her back to the home, by applying a brace type hold around her neck. Having dragged her into the kitchen, the defendant took a butchers knife and held it to Pauline's neck. Mary heard the noise, ran to the kitchen and saw the defendant do that. He dropped the knife when Mary screamed. Mary recalled that Pauline was gasping and Pauline said she fell to the ground. Mary saw a mark on Pauline's neck and recalled Pauline saying to her that the defendant had forgotten Mary was home, otherwise he would have killed her. A contemporaneous and documentary evidence of Count 15 is Mary's text message to her boyfriend Vikram at 9:54 am which stated "He had a knife against her".
In relation to Count 15, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant used the butchers knife, being an ordinarily dangerous weapon and a thing which he adapted for offensive purposes and a thing which he intentionally used to threaten and for offensive purposes and did so with the intention of committing an indictable offence being intimidation of Pauline with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm: s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. Whilst it is not an element of the offence I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 15 offence.
In relation to Count 16, the Crown case included that the defendant said to Pauline that he was going to kill her, whilst in the kitchen holding the knife against her throat. Neither Pauline nor Mary gave evidence of the defendant speaking that threat whilst in the kitchen. I find the defendant not guilty of Count 16.
In relation to Count 17, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately punched Pauline, slapped Pauline, dragged her in a neck brace type hold, in addition to placing the butchers knife to her throat and that Pauline did not consent to the application of any of such force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 17 offence.

[102]

Sequence 10/Sequence 11

It is convenient to consider the evidence of these two charges simultaneously because they arise out of the same occasion. However, I consider the evidence separately in my determination of verdict in relation to each charge.
On an occasion between April and May 2017 when Michael and Sally were soon to be married, the defendant and Michael were at the driveway of the Pitt Street home. The defendant strongly disapproved of the forthcoming marriage.
Evidence which was consistent, although not identical was given by Pauline, Sally, Michael, Mary, Ann and Peter of this event. One would not expect their evidence, if credible to have been identical, not just because of the passage of time since the occurrence of the event but also because they were not all in the same proximity for the whole of the event which transpired between the defendant, Michael and Sally.
Pauline, Sally, Michael and Mary all gave evidence that the defendant spoke words to the effect of threats to kill Michael. The evidence of the witnesses was credible and struck me as given by each of them truthfully and accurately to the best of their recollection. There is no evidence to the contrary. The evidence was that whilst Sally and Michael were attempting to appease the defendant, Michael inviting him to enter the house to talk, the defendant grabbed Sally with both of his hands to her bicep region of each of her arms, quite hard and Sally protested that he was hurting her.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that amongst the defendant's numerous threats to kill Michael, at one stage he said words to the effect that if Michael touched him he would kill Michael.
In relation to Sequence 10, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant intimidated Michael with the intention of causing Michael to fear physical or mental harm. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 10 offence.
In relation to Sequence 11, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied physical force in the form of a hard grab to each of Sally's arms at about the bicep level, causing her pain and that Sally did not consent to the application of such force, indeed she protested to the defendant to stop because he was hurting her.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 11 offence.

[103]

Count 18

Pauline, Sally and Michael each gave credible, consistent evidence of this event. There was no evidence to the contrary. There is no dispute, of the nexus to the contemporaneous record of Dr Bui, dentist made 27 October 2017 that Pauline suffered an injury to her lip and to her front teeth on that day.
Pauline said that during an argument in the car and whilst the defendant was driving, she turned to look at him and he punched her straight in the face causing what she thought was broken front teeth. Her mouth was bleeding. He lips swelled. Dr Bui's note is consistent, not with a finding of broken teeth but with a force applied to her front teeth. Pauline lied to Dr Bui, telling him that she had fallen over. Sally recalled that she saw Pauline's face was puffy and she was speaking as if there was something wrong with her mouth. Pauline showed Sally the little cut on her top lip and told Sally that the defendant had punched her in the face earlier. Sally's evidence of that complaint by Pauline was admissible pursuant to s 66(2) Evidence Act as evidence of the truth of Pauline's complaint. Michael gave evidence of having made the same observations of Pauline's lip and teeth at the same time as as did Sally. He mentioned also a bruise on Pauline's chin and recalled Pauline's expression of concern as to what persons, particularly Detective Sergeant Kylie Whiting might think if they saw her appearance.
On the whole of the evidence I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 October 2017, the defendant deliberately punched Pauline on her face in the vicinity of her mouth and as a consequence of that punch, Pauline suffered a cut lip and soreness to her two upper incisors (central) teeth, without looseness being a hurt and injury that interfered with her health and comfort within the meaning of "actual bodily harm" under s 59 Crimes Act. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did not consent to the application of such force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 18 offence.

[106]

Sequence 17/Sequence 18

It is convenient to consider the evidence of Sequence 17 and Sequence 18 simultaneously given the offences arise out of the same event. Sara, Mary and Peter gave evidence which was consistent of this event. Sara's evidence was in her recorded interview with police. In Court Sara was not asked questions of the event and did not give further evidence of the event. The evidence of each of Sara, Mary and Peter was credible. There was no evidence to the contrary.
The defendant's threat, the subject of the Crown's case on intimidation in Count 17, was recorded by Peter's friend Mr Khoudair on the PlayStation which they were playing at the time: Exhibit H. The time of the recording was 7:24 pm on 27 March 2019.
Sara and Mary described the defendant having grabbed Sara's arms and slammed her head into a wall. In her recorded evidence, Sara also said that the defendant was shaking her head. Mary saw the defendant grab Sara's arms.
Mary and Peter said that Peter, on becoming aware of what was going on around him whilst playing the PlayStation game, having a earmuff over only one ear, tried to intervene to protect his sister Sara. Peter pushed the defendant onto the couch.
In the Exhibit H recording, the defendant is heard threatening Sara that he would "send" her head into the wall and that if she called the police he would "send" her head into the wall. In his rage he called Peter a "sick dog". Sara is heard asking the defendant to stop touching her.
In relation to Sequence 17, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 March 2019 the defendant intimidated Sara with the intention of causing Sara to fear physical or mental harm by aggressively shouting to her that if she called the police, he would slam her head into the wall. Whilst not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Sara did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm. Indeed, Sara told police that she believed the defendant would harm her such as by cutting her up and feeding her to the pigs.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 17 offence.
In relation to Sequence 18 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant grabbed Sara's arms, causing her to cry. Whilst mindful that Peter said that he heard a bang, when his attention was on the PlayStation game, and aware that Mary did not give evidence describing the defendant actually causing Sara's head to contact the wall; nevertheless, on the whole of that evidence I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that as described by Mary to police, the defendant did grab Sara's head and slam it on the wall and shake it.
Mary gave truthful and reliable evidence. It is not necessarily the case that she saw all that occurred. She was not asked in evidence to explain her opportunity to view the whole of the scene or when her attention was first directed toward it.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant deliberately applied physical force by grabbing Sara's arm and by slamming Sara's head into the wall and shaking Sara. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Sara did not consent to the application of such force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Sequence 18 offence.

[108]

Count 22/Count 23/Count 24

The Crown opened in relation to these counts as if they occurred in close proximity of time on 29 July 2019 (MFI 2 [137] - [144]). Count 22, was prosecuted as the defendant having intimidated Pauline by "at one point in the incident" of him preventing her from leaving the bedroom, when he said to her words to the effect "you should kill yourself otherwise I'm going to kill you" and "during the incident" when a sewing kit including a pair of scissors was on the table in front of Pauline, the defendant said to her words to the effect that he wanted to grab the scissors and put it in her neck whilst saying "I should have killed you in the morning instead of telling you to sleep". The Crown opened on Count 23 describing it as the defendant having shoved Pauline back and her head hitting the wall when she tried to leave the bedroom and then his holding her and shaking her. The Crown opened on Count 24 describing an event in the argument between Pauline and the defendant when Mary attempted to intervene at about the time the defendant shoved Pauline's head into the wall, the defendant threatened that he was going to kill Mary who then left because she was very scared as a consequence of the threat.
The evidence in the hearing of 29 July 2019 described separate events in time on that day, rather than, as I understood the Crown's opening to be, having occurred during a single occasion on that day.
Each of Pauline, Mary, Sara and Ann gave evidence of those events. There is no inconsistency of significance in their evidence. Their evidence was credible. There was no evidence to the contrary.
In her recorded police interview, Mary said that on the morning of 29 July 2019 she heard the defendant making threats to Pauline including that if she did not leave he was going to hurt her and that it was better that she leave instead of him hurting her in front of the children. The defendant and Pauline then took the younger children to school. Pauline and Mary gave evidence of events which commenced on the return of the defendant and Pauline to the home sometime around 9:30 am. On the whole of the evidence, the defendant trapped Pauline in the bedroom by his standing in the open doorway, not letting her leave whilst he was hitting her as she stood up against the wall. Mary's more specific evidence was that the defendant was bridged up against Pauline making threats to kill her and that if she did not kill herself he should kill her. Their evidence was that the defendant placed his open palms on either side of Pauline's head, squeezed it and pushed it into the wall. Pauline said that it hurt but it did not leave a mark or cause swelling.
On Mary's attempt to intervene, trying to tell the defendant to calm down and let Pauline leave the bedroom to go to the bathroom, the defendant said to Mary to be quiet and that he was going to kill her. At about that point, when Pauline tried to exit the bedroom the defendant grabbed Pauline's arms and pushed her back against the wall, speaking that she should not kill herself in the house because he could get into trouble and that if she was going to kill herself she should do it somewhere else. On Pauline's third attempt to escape the bedroom, she went to the bathroom and was vomiting. She and Mary were scared.
In her electronically recorded interview with police, Sara gave consistent evidence of her recollection of her parents arguing in the morning before she left for university. She returned at around 9 pm. In order to attempt to protect Pauline from the defendant, she had asked Pauline to help her reading over a university assignment at the dining room table. The defendant then argued again with Pauline when there was a sewing kit including scissors on the table. Sara recounted that the defendant threatened Pauline that he would grab the scissors and put them in her neck. Exhibit J is a recording of passages of the argument occurring on the evening of 29 July 2019, when Sara was able to surreptitiously obtain it and the defendant is heard to scream at Pauline that he would put the scissors in her throat. He is also heard to say that he should have killed Pauline in the morning instead of telling her to go to sleep.
Pauline and Ann gave consistent evidence of what would be a third incident in time on 29 July 2019. It was when Ann was sleeping with Pauline because she was experiencing her first menstrual cycle. Pauline was woken by the defendant shaking her on the shoulder. Ann was woken by Pauline's scream and tapping Ann on her hand. The defendant said that he had experienced a nightmare and had come to Pauline's bedroom three times to strangle her while she slept. While the defendant and Pauline argued, Ann asked if she and Pauline could go to the bathroom which was a ruse to avoid the defendant's behaviour. They waited in the bathroom until he had returned downstairs.
In relation to Count 22, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant spoke words of threat to Pauline on 29 July 2019 of the effect that she should kill herself and otherwise he should kill her. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 29 July 2019 the defendant intimidated Pauline by speaking those words with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 22 offence.
In relation to Count 23, I am satisfied that on 29 July 2019 the defendant grabbed Pauline by both arms, shoved her against the wall and shoved her head into the wall whilst placing his open hands on either side of her head and squeezing it such that she felt pain but that the impact with the wall and squeezing did not leave a mark or swelling. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied that physical force to the body of Pauline and that Pauline did not consent to the application of such force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 23 offence.
In relation to Count 24, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 29 July 2019 the defendant did intimidate Mary by threatening to kill her with the intention of causing Mary to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mary did actually in fact suffer fear of physical or mental harm.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 24 offence.

[111]

Sequence 19/Sequence 20/Sequence 21/Count 25/Count 26

Each of Sequences 19 and 20 and counts 25 and 26 concern events which occurred on 15 August 2019. It is efficient to deal with the evidence of that day simultaneously. However, I consider my verdict in relation to each of the charges separately.
As already stated, shortly before judgment the Crown conceded that the evidence does not satisfy at the beyond reasonable doubt standard, the Crowns burden of proof of Sequence 21 and for that reason a verdict of not guilty must be entered.
The common evidence of Pauline, Mary, Peter and Ann was that throughout the 15th of August 2019, until Pauline escaped from the defendant's presence by leaving the family car on the afternoon return trip from picking Peter and Ann up at school, the defendant continued to argue with Pauline aggressively.
Only Pauline gave evidence of the specific acts prosecuted by the Crown in counts 25 and 26. I found her evidence to be credible. There was no evidence to the contrary.
Pauline said that whilst she and the defendant were alone in the family car, a little after 9 am, on the return trip to home from having dropped the youngest children, Peter and Ann at school in Westmead, the defendant said to her "I should kill you for what you've done". This was the subject of the Count 26 intimidation. Pauline asked if they could continue home. The defendant turned and with his hand in a position of palm vertical and fingers at 90 degrees horizontal pushed his fingers in a stabbing motion into the side of Pauline' neck causing a mark near her Adam's apple. Pauline said that she suffered pain in her neck and that it made it hard for her to breath. She felt scared, her heart was racing and she moved away from the defendant as much as she could in the car so that he did not have much access. This was the specific act of assault, prosecuted by the Crown in Count 25.
Mary said that when she was picked up from university, which on the evidence must have been before 2:30 pm, she saw marks on Pauline's face. When they arrived home she asked Pauline if the defendant had hit her but Pauline did not answer. At about 2:30 pm the defendant and Pauline left to pick up Peter and Ann from school. At around 3:40 pm, Pauline telephoned Mary to inform her that the defendant had kicked her out of the car and Mary gave evidence of the defendant arriving home, banging the door and screaming "I'm going to kill this bitch".
In relation to Count 25, I am on the evidence of Pauline, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied the physical force of stabbing her in the neck with his fingers, as described by her and as demonstrated by her in her DVEC and that she did not consent to the application of such force.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 25 offence.
In relation to Count 26, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence of Pauline alone, that the defendant intimidated Pauline by saying that he should kill her for what she had done, with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm. That Pauline later in the day made her escape from the defendant was clear evidence of her fear.
I am satisfised beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 26 offence.
The specific acts prosecuted by the Crown in Sequence 19 and Sequence 20 were the subject of evidence of Ann and Peter of what happened in the family car on the return trip from picking them up from school at Westmead up to the point Pauline left the car not to return to the presence of the defendant. There was no evidence to the contrary. Each of them gave credible evidence of the defendant having made contact with Pauline's chin, the specific act prosecuted by the Crown in relation to Sequence 20. Only Ann, whose evidence was given credibly, gave evidence of the defendant's threat concerning hitting Pauline in the neck, being the specific act relied upon by the Crown in Sequence 20. Because I was impressed by the evidence of Peter and Ann as witnesses who each conscientiously did their best to truthfully give evidence of what they actually recalled, I found their evidence in relation to Sequences 19 and 20 to be convincing.
In relation to Sequence 19, whilst Peter did not give evidence of the defendant making the statement, Ann's evidence that the defendant spoke to Pauline in words of the effect "don't make me hit you in the neck Pauline" is corroborated beyond reasonable doubt by a passage of the recording surreptitiously obtained by her in Exhibit K in which the defendant, in heated fashion is heard to shout words including "don't make me hit you in the neck Pauline". After exercising the caution earlier indicated, in circumstances of Pauline not having given evidence of the Sequence 19 specific act; I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant on 15 August 2019 spoke those words to Pauline intimidating her and with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Sequence 19 offence.
In relation to the Sequence 20 incident of the defendant making contact with Pauline's chin, Ann said he "like touched her chin" whereas Peter said that the defendant "aggressively grabbed Pauline's chin to make her look at him". Whilst exercising the caution of which I have spoken in circumstances of Pauline not having given evidence of this specific act in relation to Sequence 20; I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied the force of taking hold of Pauline's chin to turn her face toward him and that she did not consent to the application of such force. The event occurred during a heated argument.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 20 Charge.

[112]

ORDERS

On [H72451736] Sequence 21 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 21 offence.
On Count 1 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 1 offence.
On Count 2 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 2 offence.
On Count 3 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 3 offence.
On Count 4 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 4 offence.
On Count 5 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 5 offence.
On Count 6 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 6 offence.
On Count 7 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 7 offence.
On Count 8 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 8 offence.
On Count 9 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 9 offence.
On Sequence 45 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 45 offence.
On Count 10 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 10 offence.
On Sequence 1 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 1 offence.
On Sequence 2 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 2 offence.
On Sequence 3 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 3 offence.
On Count 11 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 11 offence.
On Count 12 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 12 offence.
On Count 13 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 13 offence.
On Count 14 I find the defendant not guilty.
On Count 15 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 15 offence.
On Count 16 I find the defendant not guilty.
On Count 17 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 17 offence.
On Sequence 10 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 10 offence.
On Sequence 11 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 11 offence.
On Count 18 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 18 offence.
On Count 19 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 19 offence.
On Count 20 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 20 offence.
On Sequence 17 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 17 offence.
On Sequence 18 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 18 offence.
On Count 21 I find the defendant not guilty.
On Count 22 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 22 offence.
On Count 23 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 23 offence.
On Count 24 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 24 offence.
On Count 27 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 27 offence.
On Count 28 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 28 offence.
On Sequence 7 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 7 offence.
On Sequence 8 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 8 offence.
On Sequence 9 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 9 offence.
On Sequence 10 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 10 offence.
On Sequence 11 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 11 offence.
On Sequence 12 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 12 offence.
On Sequence 13 I find the defendant not guilty.
On Sequence 14 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 14 offence.
On Sequence 19 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 19 offence.
On Sequence 20 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 20 offence.
On [H72032147] Sequence 21 I find the defendant not guilty.
On Count 25 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 25 offence.
On Count 26 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 26 offence.

R v Boujandy

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (113 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (6)

Cases Cited (2)

Cited By (1)