Alleged DV abuser refused bail after he allegedly called aggrieved 76 times from jail

An alleged domestic violence abuser has applied for bail, where a court was told he called his partner more than 70 times while in custody for allegedly strangling her.

Alleged DV abuser refused bail after he allegedly called aggrieved 76 times from jail.

An alleged domestic violence abuser has been refused bail, after details of his alleged behaviour while in jail were exposed in court.

The defendant appeared by videolink in the Roma Magistrates Court on June 26, from the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre in Wacol.

He has been in that facility since he was charged with strangling his domestic partner on February 18, 2024. The defendant also faced charges of contravening a police order on December 27, 2023.

He was represented by solicitor Tristan Butler Keegan, who appeared by phone.

In applying for his client’s bail, Mr Butler Keegan told the court the defendant should be released from custody because the evidence of the strangulation offence was largely circumstantial.

The court was told the defendant was charged after the alleged victim’s mother filed a complaint at Roma police station after her grandchildren, the victim’s children, voiced concerns about domestic violence they had witnessed.

Police prosecutor Ellysha Geddes told the court police attended the children’s home, where they found the alleged victim with bruising and scratches to her face and body.

Ms Geddes said the alleged victim was not forthcoming with information, and police said the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with the provided explanation.

However, Mr Butler Keegan told the court there had been no medical examination of the aggrieved to his knowledge, and there was no forensic medical statement.

He also said a possible explanation for the children’s concern could be that the alleged victim was allegedly in a previous violent relationship.

Mr Butler Keegan said the defendant’s intended bail address was his mother’s house in Caboolture.

Ms Geddes said this was not an appropriate bail address as the alleged victim currently resided at that address.

There is a current protection order between the defendant and the alleged victim which prohibited any form of communication between the pair.

However, the court was told that since his arrest in February, the defendant had made at least 76 phone calls to the alleged victim.

Ms Geddes said the content of those phone calls at times seemed to imply references to the alleged incident.

“There was an element of coercion in their discussion,” Ms Geddes said.

Ms Geddes said during the phone calls the defendant made requests to the alleged victim to contact his previous lawyer, and requests.

“Toward the latter end of the recordings, the defendant was using slang to refer to illicit substances consumed in custody,” she said.

She said it was her concern the defendant’s continuous calls to the aggrieved interfered with a possible witness.

The defendant has been charged with 76 breaches of the domestic violence order due to the calls, which are set to be mentioned in the Ipswich Magistrates Court at a later date.

Mr Butler Keegan said in his opinion, the content of the phone calls was not coercive.

Magistrate Melanie Ho said: “the defendant has a lengthy history of failing to appear and bail contraventions.”

She also said he has a history of disregard for court orders, is “known to use drugs and known to be violent”.

Ms Ho did not grant the defendant bail, and adjourned the matter until July 16.