Regional Victorian farmer accused of enslaving wife and children to work through threats, beatings and intimidation
A farmer accused of enslaving his family through beatings, threats and intimidation allegedly told one child; “I could kill you at any time”, a court has been told.
A Victorian father accused of enslaving his family on a regional property allegedly told one child; “I could kill you at any time”, when she complained they were late for school.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, returned to the Victorian Supreme Court on Wednesday as prosecutors continued to outline their case.
He has pleaded not guilty to 12 charges, including seven counts of causing another person to enter into and remain in servitude and three of intentionally causing injury.
Prosecutors alleged the man used violence, threats and intimidation to force his wife and children to perform farm and house work over a period of about five years.
In his opening address to the jury, Patrick Doyle SC said it was the prosecution case the family were “living under tyranny” on the working farm in regional Victoria.
Mr Doyle said it was alleged the man had conditioned his family to fear and obey him prior to their move from interstate, but the isolated farm led to worse threats, violence, manipulation and belittlement.
While working the farm, the family were allegedly locked out of the house and unable to access food, clean drinking water and bathrooms until he decided they were done.
The man stands accused of treating his loved ones like slaves to harvest produce, dig irrigation channels, tend to animals and build fences alongside other duties such as doing taxes and cleaning the house.
The family was allegedly beaten with objects found around the farm, such as irrigation hose, if they ever refused or complained, Mr Doyle told the jury.
He said one child would recount sitting in the man’s ATV as he ran over wild dogs that had entered the property.
“That’s what happens to people that disobey me. That’s what happens if you don’t do what I tell you to,” the man allegedly said.
Mr Doyle said another child would give evidence the man allegedly picked up a rifle and said; “I could kill you at any time”, when she complained they were late for school.
He told the jury the man was allegedly overheard boasting to a neighbour he did not need to work “because he had a family to do it for him”.
The prosecutor said the man’s children had “unusually large absences” from school which the crown alleges is because they were forced to work.
Mr Doyle said it was alleged the man banned social relationships outside the family, restricted their ability to leave the property and would arbitrarily introduce restrictions — such as limiting food or access to hygiene products.
“The fundamental case is when the family did work they didn’t have the freedom not to,” he said.
“They were not free to refuse any of those tasks without being subject to violence.”
Mr Doyle asked the jury to place themselves in the shoes of the alleged victims, questioning; “would you consider yourself free to stop working or to leave the farm?”
“To be so completely dependent on the whims of one person … its not freedom,” he said.
Mr Doyle told the jury over the course of the trial they would hear from each family member, neighbours and school teachers.
In response, defence barrister Alexander Patton told the jury his client had been painted as a “monster” by his ex-wife and children and said the central issue of the case was whether the jury could believe their allegations.
He told the jury it was not disputed his client’s family had helped out on the farm by performing chores but denied the farmer ever used violence, threats, or intimidation.
“Are they being forced into labor or are they doing what generations of families have done before and pitching in,” he said.
“This isn’t a case where (the man) sent his family to work in a business that was making him rich ... this was family helping out on a farm.
“This is a man accused of serious crimes he simply did not commit.”
Mr Patton said his client denied controlling his family’s freedom, questioning why his children would have been allowed to volunteer or supported in their university goals if this was the case.
He urged the jury to keep an open mind until they had heard all of the evidence and to give the man the same benefit of the doubt they would want if a loved one was wrongly accused.
The trial continues.