World expert says Queensland needs to amend choking law

A WORLD expert in suffocation laws says Jack’s action of putting fingers down his partner’s throat met the criteria for the charge of Choking/Strangulation/Suffocation – but there’s a problem which is letting offenders escape proper justice.

A WORLD expert in suffocation laws says Jack's action of putting fingers down his partner's throat met the criteria for the charge of Choking/Strangulation/Suffocation - but there's a problem which is letting offenders escape proper justice.

The Morning Bulletin contacted Red Rose Foundation's chief executive officer Betty Taylor after hearing the facts of the assault "Jack" unleashed on his partner at Emerald before driving off in her car, while he was disqualified by court order.

Ms Taylor was in San Diego when The Bulletin contacted her and she ran the facts past a Dr William Smock who said the facts met the criteria for the suffocation charge under section 315A of the Criminal Code (QLD) which was introduced May 5, 2016.

"The problem is that there is no definition within 315A … something we are lobbying for," Ms Taylor said.

She said placement of fingers in mouth and/or throat inhibits a person's ability to breath.

Ms Taylor said she had written to Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath about adding definitions to the legislation but had not received a response.

Questions emailed to Ms D'Ath's office by The Bulletin have also gone unanswered.

A judgment delivered on July 23, 2019, from a District Court case by Judge John Coker in Townsville where the lack of definition under the Act was raised when a complainant was unable to absolutely say if she had not been able to breath during at least one point of while she was being choked.

"The terms used in the section refer to unlawfully choking, suffocating or strangling another person without that other person's consent. As is clear from the section itself, there is no definition of the words "choke", "suffocate" or "strangle" and those words are not otherwise defined within the provisions of the Criminal Code," Judge Coker wrote.

The order of the Judgement was: "The jury was directed, as matter of law, in relation (to the choking) to return a verdict of not guilty, and that occurred."

There were eyewitnesses of the choking incident.

Ms Taylor said choking, suffocation or strangulation was lethal and leads to higher risks of homicide down the track.

She said there was research being carried out that so far shows that if mothers are being strangled, the children in the house were highly likely also being strangled.

The maximum penalty for someone convicted of the suffocation charge is seven years prison while the maximum penalty for common assault is three years prison.

Liberal National Party attorney-general spokesman David Janetzki agreed with Ms Taylor.

"The absence of a clear definition is a legal loophole that is letting offenders escape justice," Mr Janetzki said.

"Choking, suffocating or strangling is an atrocious act and the Labor Attorney-General needs to step up and consider how to close this legal loophole.

"If I was the Attorney-General, I would get to work and fix the law. The law needs to work on behalf of victims of domestic violence and the Labor Government cannot remain silent.

"Labor should be protecting victims and holding offenders accountable for their actions".

Ms Taylor said the foundation was now considering starting a e-petition to take to the State Government to push the case for definitions to be added to legislation.