The offenders, Trevor and Troy Maher, are brothers. They have pleaded guilty to serious offences which have resulted in significant injury to the victim, John Jarrett. The circumstances giving rise to the offending conduct, when viewed in the context of the evidence about each offender's background of deprivation and disadvantage and the violence they witnessed as children, provide an example of the different directions in which the purposes of sentencing sometimes point.
This is a case which also highlights the devastating impact of a disadvantaged background not only on the individuals who have lived those experiences, but on victims and the community more widely. What follows also highlights the impact of intergenerational trauma and the compounding effect of being exposed to violence and drug use.
The offenders come before the Court to be sentenced in respect of offences committed against John Jarrett.
Trevor Maher has pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm to the victim with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The offence is contrary to s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 7 years imprisonment.
Clearly, his role in the offending is significantly more serious than that of his brother. Ironically, his initial engagement with the victim was as a result of a perceived injustice perpetrated by the victim towards Troy, namely breaking into his house and stealing his property.
Trevor Maher had offered to plead guilty to a charge contrary to s 33 of the Crimes Act in the Local Court. The offer was conditional upon an affray charge being withdrawn, and upon the Prosecution withdrawing all charges against his brother. The position taken in the Local Court was motivated by a misconceived attempt to protect his brother's interests.
The offer was refused in the Local Court. The matter was committed for trial. He entered a plea of guilty on the basis of a disputed fact hearing during the Lismore Super Call Over.
The Crown has fairly conceded that it is open in Trevor's case to apply a 25% discount to reflect utilitarian value of the plea. That concession is made on the basis that he did offer to plead guilty to the same charge in the Local Court, albeit that the offer was conditional.
Troy Maher is to be sentenced for an offence of causing grievous bodily harm to the victim being reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to him, while in the company of his brother. This offence is contrary to s 35(1) of the Crimes Act. It carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment.
Troy Maher entered his plea of guilty during the Lismore Super Call Over. No offer to plead guilty to the present offence was made in the Local Court. It is conceded on his behalf that the appropriate discount in those circumstances is one of 10%: s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
Although each offender acknowledges his guilt in respect of the elements of the offence and accepts responsibility for the injuries sustained by the victim, each offender has always maintained a dispute in relation to the facts alleged by the Crown. The dispute on the facts was notified to the Court. That dispute is resolved in the body of this judgment upon the evidence adduced during the proceedings.
The Evidence
Determination of the facts in dispute requires an assessment of the evidence adduced during the sentence proceedings. The Crown intended to call the victim to give evidence. Notice had been given to the victim to attend for that purpose. He did not attend. The Crown is satisfied that the victim was aware of the date of the sentence proceedings and the requirement that he attend to give evidence. There is no explanation as to why he did not attend. The Crown was content to continue in light of the fact that the proceedings have been specially fixed for sentence today and the offenders have been in custody for some time.
Trevor Maher has given sworn evidence in the proceedings. He has been cross-examined. He gave evidence that he found out that his brother's home had been broken into. The description of the perpetrator led Trevor to believe that it was Mr Jarrett (the victim in these proceedings).
Trevor went to the premises at Wilson Street partly because he intended to buy some drugs and partly because he believed that the victim would be in attendance. He wanted to confront the victim about breaking into his brother's home. He did not take a weapon. He did not intend to assault him.
When he entered the premises, he saw the victim in the kitchen/dining area. He was about to confront him when there was a verbal argument. Abuse was exchanged. The victim armed himself with a hammer and lunged at Trevor. He missed his head and struck the wall. Trevor reacted by either pushing or punching the victim away from him. He sustained a blow from the hammer to his shoulder. He was chased down the corridor and out of the house by the victim wielding the hammer.
Upon exiting the house, he saw a hockey stick on the grassed area outside. He armed himself with it and struck the victim, knocking the hammer out of his hand.
He gave evidence that he was "a bit wired". At that point he described himself as "seeing red - I know I went overboard".
He was under the influence of methadone and had not taken amphetamines for some two days prior. He admits that, once armed with the hockey stick, he struck the victim as outlined in the statement of facts and takes responsibility for the injuries sustained.
He was cross-examined and largely maintained his account.
Troy Maher gave sworn evidence in the proceedings. Sometime shortly before this incident, he was told by his father-in-law that Mr Jarrett had broken into his house. He admitted that he was angry because the victim had robbed his house and he wanted his property back. He gave evidence that he went to the premises with an intention of "getting on". He did not intend to assault the victim.
He claimed that he was "pretty calm". I do not accept that evidence. I am satisfied that he was angry about his house being broken into and wanted to confront the victim. He gave evidence that he did not go to the premises with the intention of assaulting the victim. I accept that evidence.
Upon entering the premises he went into the lounge room and spoke to a number of the occupants. Trevor was in the dining kitchen area. He could not see into that area clearly but heard abuse and name-calling. He then saw his brother being chased out of the house along the corridor by the victim who was armed with something in his hand. Although he has described the item, on occasion, as a claw hammer or hammer, it appears that he did not see the item until he actually left the house.
He denied punching or striking the victim in any way at any time. Upon exiting the house, he saw his brother strike the victim "a couple of times" with the hockey stick. He gave evidence that he was some metres away. Although he denied "egging him on", he did admit that, while the victim was being struck by his brother, who was armed with the hockey stick, he did yell out words to the effect of "this is what you get", a reference to the victim having broken into the offender's house.
He was cross-examined. He said that the first he was aware that the victim was present was when he heard a "commotion". He could hear verbal abuse being exchanged in the kitchen/dining area. He saw the victim chase Trevor out of the house. This took seconds. He followed outside. He saw Trevor hitting the victim with the hockey stick. Troy repeated that he did not strike the victim.
Although he disputed the characterisation of what he was saying as "egging" his brother on, he did yell out words to the effect that "this is what you [the victim] get" for having broken into his house.
Although Troy Maher denied that what is said could be characterised as "egging" his brother on, I am satisfied, given the plea of guilty, that he was involved in a joint criminal enterprise at that point by way of being present, encouraging, and being ready and willing to assist his brother if required.
I now turn to summarise the facts upon which I sentence each of the offenders, setting out my findings in respect of the areas in dispute.
[2]
Facts
At about 2:30PM on 9 December 2019, the offenders were driven to a location outside South Lismore Primary School. They walked to a house at Wilson Street. I am satisfied that each of the offenders attended those premises to purchase drugs, but also believed that the victim might be present. I am satisfied that they were aware that the victim frequented those premises. I am satisfied that each offender was angry with the victim given the information they had received that he had broken into Troy's house and stolen property.
I am not satisfied that the offenders went to the premises with the intention of assaulting the victim or causing injury to him. I find that they attended for the dual purpose of purchasing drugs and confronting the victim to demand the stolen property back.
The victim was present in the house. A number of other people were also present in the premises. I am satisfied that Troy went into the lounge room and spoke to the occupants there. Trevor went to the kitchen/dining area where the victim was present. Trevor then confronted the victim about his involvement in a break-in at the house of Troy Maher and demanded the stolen property back. At that stage, both Trevor and the victim were verbally abusing each other and calling each other names.
The victim became agitated and picked up a hammer from the kitchen bench or table. He lunged at Trevor, missing his head and striking the wall. The victim then chased Trevor out of the house, at some point striking him to the shoulder area. I am satisfied that Troy witnessed at least part of this interaction.
Upon exiting the house, Trevor took possession of a hockey stick that was on the grass outside. He picked it up and struck the victim with it, causing the victim to drop the hammer. That is where things should have stopped. It did not. Thereafter, the events are not in dispute.
Trevor hit the victim several times to the legs and knees. The victim was able to get up and run from the house onto the street. Trevor gave chase as the victim fled out of the front of the premises and across the street. Troy Maher ran after them. On the grass verge outside 89 Phyllis Street, Trevor caught up with the victim and felled him with a blow to the leg.
The victim fell to the ground. Whilst the victim was on the ground, Trevor struck him across the head and torso. The victim then got up and had blood coming from his head. Trevor began to walk away but when he saw the victim get to his feet, he came back and hit the victim again across the left knee. The victim dropped to the ground. Trevor then struck the victim with a hockey stick about five blows to the head and body.
As this was happening, Troy was approximately one to two metres away, watching and "egging" Trevor on.
The offenders drove away from the scene. The victim was taken by ambulance to Lismore Base Hospital and subsequently transferred to Gold Coast University Hospital for treatment.
He sustained the following injuries:
1. left posterior skull fracture;
2. subarachnoid haemorrhage;
3. traumatic brain injury resulting in headaches, difficulties with speech and executive functioning, decision-making and memory;
4. two lacerations to the left of the scalp in the temporal region, each 4 cm in length; and
5. multiple bruises to the body including the left side of the back, the left forearm on the right thigh.
On 10 December 2019, Trevor Maher was arrested. He participated in an interview with police and admitted that he and his brother had attended the address to confront the victim as he believed that the victim had broken into Troy's house. He admitted to assaulting the victim.
In relation to Trevor Maher, I proceed upon the basis that he was initially confronted by the victim who was in possession of a hammer. The victim had lunged at him and chased him out of the house. I am satisfied that, initially, Trevor reacted, believing on reasonable grounds that he had to do what he did in striking the victim to disarm him, so as to protect himself. Thereafter, his response was completely disproportionate to the threat. The victim was disarmed. The attack upon the victim continued by way of a number of blows notwithstanding the fact that he had been rendered completely vulnerable.
Trevor Maher also relies upon provocation as a mitigating factor. I accept that, after Trevor disarmed the victim, he continued to attack him in a state of complete loss of control inflicting the serious injuries upon the victim.
Troy Maher's role is significantly less serious than that of his brother. His involvement was by way of joint criminal enterprise. He did not strike a blow and was not directly responsible for the injuries sustained by the victim.
Each offence carries a standard non-parole period. In the case of Trevor Maher, the standard non-parole period is one of 7 years imprisonment. In the case of Troy Maher, the standard non-parole period is one of 5 years imprisonment. I remind myself that the standard non-parole period is neither the starting point nor the endpoint at arriving at the appropriate penalty. I must have regard to all of the factors relevant to sentencing.
In each case, I will depart from the standard non-parole period. I do so because each offender has pleaded guilty, and having regard to each offender's subjective case. In the case of Troy Maher, I have also had regard to the fact that the objective seriousness of his offence falls just below the middle of the range.
[3]
Objective Seriousness
The nature of the injury caused to the victim will, to a very significant degree, determine the seriousness of the offence and the appropriate sentence: R v Mitchell [2007] 177 A Crim R 94 at [27]; Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 at [29]; R v Zhang [2004] NSWCCA 358 at [4]. In general terms, the graver the injury, the more serious the offence.
In this case, the injuries inflicted are serious and have had long-lasting impact. The victim has suffered a traumatic brain injury which has impaired his speech, executive functioning and memory. The injuries are not, however, at the higher end of injuries for this offence category. The victim has, fortunately, not been rendered completely incapacitated or in a vegetative state.
In addition to injury sustained, I must take into account the circumstances of the offending. Given my findings as set out above, I am not persuaded that the offenders attended with an intention to assault the victim or cause serious injury.
Neither offender was armed when they attended the premises. I am satisfied that, upon being confronted, the victim reacted by taking possession of a hammer in a threatening manner. Trevor acted, initially, to protect himself against being struck by the victim. Arming himself with a hockey stick was an opportunistic act in response to the threat posed by the victim. However, the offender's violence thereafter was completely disproportionate to the threat.
The attack upon the victim perpetrated by Trevor was sustained, and continued even after the victim had fallen to the ground. An aggravating factor is the use of a weapon by Trevor to strike the victim multiple times. The injuries are serious and have resulted in permanent impairment.
I am not satisfied, in Trevor's case, that the offence was committed in company. Put another way I am not satisfied that this aggravating factor has been established by the Crown to the requisite standard. In his evidence, Trevor Maher stated that he "saw red" and reacted in this violent manner without thought as to anyone else around him. In those circumstances, in Trevor's case, I find that the objective seriousness is at the middle of the range for this offence category.
In Troy Maher's case, I take into account that he did not deliver any blows to the victim. His criminality is a result of a joint criminal enterprise with his brother. He was present, encouraging and willing to assist his brother in the course of that joint criminal enterprise. I have had regard to the serious nature of the injuries and the fact that they were inflicted by use of a weapon. Given his limited role, I find that the offence falls just below the middle of the range of objective seriousness for this offence category.
In each case, the offender has an extensive criminal history which includes matters of violence. Pursuant to s 21A(1)(d) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), each offender has a record of previous convictions which constitutes an aggravating factor. However, to be clear, this is not a factor I take into account in determining the objective seriousness of the offences themselves.
A further aggravating factor in the case of Trevor Maher is that he was subject to conditional liberty at the time that he committed the offence, namely, he was subject to a Community Corrections Order. To be clear, I do not take this into account in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence itself. It is, however, a matter relevant to the appropriate penalty by reason of the weight to be given to some of the purposes of sentencing including punishment, deterrence and the protection of the community.
[4]
Subjective Circumstances
There is no challenge to the evidence adduced setting out the subjective case for each offender. That evidence highlights the disadvantaged and deprived childhood each offender experienced. The offender's mother, Ms Delbridge, is a Bundjalung Elder. She sits on the Bundjalung Elders Council and Southern Cross University Elders Council. She is on the board of the Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Bundjalung Tribal Society.
However, Ms Delbridge is the first to acknowledge that she was not always a functioning member of the community. The intergenerational trauma which has impacted this family commenced, at least, when she was removed from her mother's care. Between the ages of 10 and 17, she was placed in orphanages and girls' homes, including the Parramatta Girls Home and Hay Girls Training School, where she was abused. By the age of 19, she was an alcoholic and continued to have a drinking problem for much of her life.
Ms Delbridge had her first son, David, when she was 14 years old. He was removed from her care and she did not see him again until he was 25 years old. Her second son is Trevor and her youngest is Troy.
Trevor and Troy's father was an alcoholic and gambler. He was regularly abusive of the offenders' mother both verbally and physically. When Trevor was a child of 3 or 4 years of age, his father would come home intoxicated, wake him and want to spar with him.
Notwithstanding this abusive conduct, Trevor continued to idolise his father and was devastated when they moved away from him. By the time Trevor was 12 or 13 years old, both he and Troy made it clear that they did not want to see their father because of his alcoholism and violence.
Their mother accepts that she was an alcoholic throughout their childhood. For many years, they lived in a house with other people who were all heavy drinkers. There would often be parties, arguments and fights between people drinking at the premises and in front of the offenders, who were children at the time. The offenders' mother was involved in a number of violent intimate relationships witnessed by the offenders. As a child, Trevor became extremely angry when he witnessed these violent interactions.
Notwithstanding the fact that the offenders' mother provided them with the essentials, such as food and accommodation, she accepts that the drinking and violence had a significant impact upon them. They often witnessed her crying and suffering as a result of, not only the violence she experienced, but the trauma of having been removed from her mother.
Both offenders rely on a chapter of the 'Bugmy Bar Book' titled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Stolen Generations and Descendants. [1] This research summary helpfully collates recent findings from numerous sources documenting the adverse consequences experienced by both members of Stolen Generations and their descendants. Compared with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were not removed or who did not have family members removed, descendants of members of Stolen Generations have been found to experience higher rates of incarceration, interaction with police and arrest; [2] poorer physical and mental health outcomes; [3] higher rates of violence; [4] and have a lower level of trust in the general community. [5]
When Trevor was 12 or 13 years old, his older brother, David, came back into their lives after being released from gaol. He moved into their house and lived with them on and off for a period of some 10 years. He had his own issues with alcohol and drug abuse. He introduced Trevor to drinking and amphetamines when Trevor was about 15 years old. On one occasion, Trevor's mother witnessed David injecting Trevor with a drug which she thought was amphetamine.
This is a brief history of the offenders' backgrounds. Troy Maher gave evidence in the proceedings consistent with this history and, in particular, being exposed to violence and alcohol and drug use in his childhood.
In Trevor's case, a psychological report has been prepared by Ms Dilati. Trevor's unstable upbringing and history of intergenerational trauma is confirmed, along with his mother having been placed in out-of-home care and deemed a ward of the state as a member of the Stolen Generations.
As a child, Trevor experienced significant difficulties with learning, reading and writing, concentration, interpersonal relationships and dyslexia. At the age of 15 he was detained at a juvenile detention centre for approximately 6 months. His experience at that institution is set out at paragraph 11 of the psychological report. This experience and his unstable educational history, regularly moving from school to school, resulted in long-standing learning difficulties and behavioural difficulties.
His substance abuse commenced at a relatively young age and he was introduced to amphetamines by his older brother. He is diagnosed as currently exhibiting several features of major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and stimulant use disorder.
The psychologist states that Trevor has engaged in a significant criminal career as a result of chronic substance use, parental dysfunction and exposure to violence. He has habitually gravitated towards negative peers who have interfered with his vocational goal of engaging in pro-social employment in a trade. Of concern to the Court is that psychological risk assessment has placed him as scoring in the high range for future violence due to a history involving violence, antisocial behaviours, problems within relationships, substance use, mental illness, traumatic experience and the current symptoms of major mental disorder.
Ms Dilati recommends a treatment plan which includes residential rehabilitation, and psychological and psychiatric treatment.
In each case, I am satisfied that the offenders experienced a childhood of deprivation and disadvantage. Family violence can have
profound short and long-term effects on children and young people that may or may not be immediately apparent: '[i]mpacts on children who live with family violence may be acute and chronic, immediate and accumulative, direct and indirect, seen and unseen'. [6]
Irrespective of the age of a child, it is ongoing exposure to violence which has been associated with the highest likelihood of behavioural difficulties. [7] Indeed, research shows that prolonged exposure to violence may cause children to experience trauma and post-traumatic stress disorders which have lasting effects on the child's development, behaviour and well-being. These symptoms include low self-esteem, poor coping mechanisms and substance abuse, [8] as well as complex disturbances such as an inability to regulate emotion, and cognitive and behavioural developmental delays. [9]
The offenders' history of deprivation and disadvantage is relevant to reducing their moral culpability. Growing up experiencing or witnessing anger and/or violence and being exposed to such violence in families and communities can lead to individuals responding with anger and violence 'almost automatically' in response to other people's behaviour of perceived provocation, and a reduced capacity to access other ways of dealing with these triggers. [10]
This history of deprivation, and the research material tendered in the proceedings relating to the potential impact of such a background upon individuals exposed to such disadvantage in their childhood, is directly relevant to the way in which the offenders (in particular, Trevor) reacted on this occasion. His capacity to self-regulate and contain his anger was impaired. This is not to excuse his conduct in any way. The victim suffered serious injury that has resulted in ongoing impairment. Although the victim was the initial aggressor, he did not deserve the beating he received at the hands of the offenders (either directly or by way of joint criminal enterprise). That history is, however, relevant to an assessment of moral culpability and the weight to be given to some of the purposes of sentencing.
The history of deprivation and disadvantage is, however, relevant in the way set out in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571:
[43] … The experience of growing up in an environment surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may leave its mark on a person throughout life. Among other things, a background of that kind may compromise the person's capacity to mature and to learn from experience. It is a feature of the person's make-up and remains relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding that the person has a long history of offending.
[44] Because the effects of profound childhood deprivation do not diminish with the passage of time and repeated offending, it is right to speak of giving "full weight" to an offender's deprived background in every sentencing decision. However, this is not to suggest … that an offender's deprived background has the same (mitigatory) relevance for all of the purposes of punishment. Giving weight to the conflicting purposes of punishment is what makes the exercise of the discretion so difficult. An offender's childhood exposure to extreme violence and alcohol abuse may explain the offender's recourse to violence when frustrated such that the offender's moral culpability for the inability to control that impulse may be substantially reduced. However, the inability to control the violent response to frustration may increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender.
These remarks are apposite in each case, and particularly so in the case of Trevor Maher who was directly responsible for the significant violence perpetrated upon the victim. On the one hand, his recourse to such violence should be placed in its proper context given his background. That background of disadvantage and deprivation operates to reduce his moral culpability. On the other hand, it is relevant to the weight to be given to the protection of the community. Psychological risk assessment has placed him as scoring in the high range for future violence.
Considerations of the protection of the community, punishment and denunciation, acknowledging the harm done to the victim, and holding each offender to account are all relevant and weighty considerations.
In each case, given the offenders' extensive criminal histories, specific deterrence is also a weighty consideration. Notwithstanding the mental health issues afflicting Trevor Maher, general deterrence is also a relevant and important consideration in sentencing each offender.
I am very guarded about each offender's prospects of rehabilitation given the extent of their criminal records and the nature of the offending in this case.
While the pleas of guilty reflect some degree of remorse, I am not persuaded that the offenders have a meaningful insight into the adverse impact of this violence upon the victim. There lingers a belief on their part that he was responsible, given their belief that he broke into Troy's premises and stolen his property.
I am prepared to find that Troy Maher's prospects are more positive given his limited role in the violence. Although, I accept that each offender is genuine in his intentions to remain abstinent and find employment, in each case, the entrenched history of substance abuse, violence and offending is such that they will require long-term and intensive treatment and support if they are ever to end the cycle of intergenerational trauma, substance abuse and violence.
It cannot be said that the offenders have no hope of rehabilitation. The process of rehabilitation will be a long and difficult one. It must be acknowledged that the protection of the community is not achieved simply by incapacitation. Rehabilitation and reducing the risk of recidivism by encouraging individuals to live pro-social lives is the most effective way to protect the community.
Given the serious nature of the offending, the only appropriate penalty is one of full-time imprisonment. In Trevor Maher's case, I take into account the psychological evidence relating to his anxiety and depression whilst in custody. These conditions have been exacerbated by virtue of the fact that there have been limited in-person visits by family members due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and inconsistent availability of electronic means to conduct visits. I accept that his time in custody has been more onerous a result of his mental health issues. However, the weight to be given to onerous conditions in custody is modest given that, as I understand it, he has been receiving in-person family visits since February 2021.
In each case, I find special circumstances warranting a variation of the statutory ratio. I make that finding because, in each case, I am satisfied that the offender will require an extended period on parole to receive treatment and counselling in relation to substance abuse issues and anger management issues.
In Trevor Maher's case, he will require a longer than usual period on parole so that his mental health issues can be properly assessed and treated in the community.
While the principle of parity has some application, Trevor Maher will be subject to a longer term of imprisonment than his brother. Trevor has pleaded guilty to an offence that carries a lengthier maximum term and standard non-parole period. He played a more significant role, being directly responsible for the blows that resulted in serious injury to the victim. Furthermore, he was subject to conditional liberty at the time he committed the offence. These factors warrant a lengthier term of imprisonment to be imposed upon him.
By contrast, although Troy's criminality was borne of a joint criminal enterprise, he did not inflict any blows to the victim and was not directly responsible for the victim's injuries.
[5]
Troy Maher
The offender is convicted. Taking into account a reduction in sentence of 10% for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty and a finding of special circumstances, I impose a sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months commencing on 13 December 2019 and expiring on 12 September 2021, with a balance of term of 1 year 6 months. The total term is 3 years 3 months imprisonment.
The offender will be eligible for consideration for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period subject to the guidance and supervision of Community Corrections for as long as they deem necessary
[6]
Trevor Maher
The offender is convicted. Taking into account a reduction in sentence of 25% for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty and a finding of special circumstances, I impose a sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 10 December 2019 and expiring on 9 December 2022, with a balance of term of 3 years imprisonment. The total term is 6 years imprisonment.
The offender will be eligible for consideration for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period subject to the guidance and supervision of Community Corrections for as long as they deem necessary.
The Court makes a recommendation that the psychological report which includes recommendations for a post-release treatment plan to be placed on Mr Maher's case file.
Ibid 6, citing Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Stolen Generations and Descendants; Numbers, Demographic Characteristics and Selected Outcomes (Report, August 2018) 1
Ibid, citing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Foundation, Bringing Them Home 20 Years On: An Action Plan for Healing (Report 2018) xiv
Ibid 7, citing Australian Institute of Family Studies, Children's Exposure to Domestic and Family Violence: Key Issues and Responses (Report, 2015) 7
Ibid 8, citing Peter G Jaffe, David Allen Wolfe and Marcie Campbell, Growing Up with Domestic Violence: Assessment, Intervention, and Prevention Strategies for Children and Adolescents (2012, Hogrefe Publishing)
Ibid, citing Australian Institute of Family Studies, Children's Exposure to Domestic and Family Violence: Key Issues and Responses (Report, 2015) 8
Andrew Day et al, 'Indigenous Family Violence: An Attempt to Understand the Problems and Inform Appropriate and Effective Responses to Criminal Justice System Intervention' (2012) 19 Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 104, 109, as referred to in written submissions on behalf of the offender Trevor Maher
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 23 March 2021