‘Crushing burden’: Parole date shortened for DV offender

A man responsible for shocking domestic violence has had his parole eligibility date shortened to avoid a “crushing burden”.

ALN domestic Generic domestic violence picture Source: iStock / Getty Images

A woman subjected to horrific and repeated domestic abuse told a court her five-year-old daughter saved her life when she screamed “please don’t kill my mummy” as her attacker choked her with both his hands wrapped around her neck.

The abuse was detailed in a Court of Appeal decision that ultimately found the man’s parole eligibility date should be shortened to avoid a “crushing burden” upon him.

The man, who was not named, was sentenced in Brisbane District Court in April to four years and three months behind bars after pleading guilty to a swath of domestic-violence-related offences.

The sentencing was complicated by the fact that the man was also in jail for drugs and weapons offences by the time the domestic violence charges were concluded in court.

The appeal judgment said the domestic violence offending took place in 2021 and continued even after the man was jailed.

The court heard the man used various tactics to intimidate and threaten his former wife, including by using his brother to pass on messages and another prisoner to conference-call the woman so he could abuse her from jail.

On February 26, 2021, the man, woman and her five-year-old daughter checked in to a hotel.

The following morning, the man accused her of cheating and they began arguing.

“The (man) put both of his hands around the complainant’s neck and squeezed,” the judgment said.

“The (woman) could not breathe and tried to pry the (man’s) hands away from her neck. The child watched as the (man) choked the (woman) and she screamed, ‘Please don’t kill my mummy, I want my mummy.’ ”

The court heard he then pushed her into a wall, and as she got to her feet he punched her in the lower abdomen and upper torso.

“As the assault occurred, the child was screaming and crying,” the judgment said.

“The (man) told (the woman) and the child to ‘shut the f… up’ and punched the (woman’s) jaw.”

When she tried to run, he grabbed her, pushed her into the bathroom and put his hands once again around her throat and squeezed.

“The child ran into the bathroom, at which point the (man) let go of the (woman’s) neck,” the judgment said.

“The child screamed that she wanted to see ‘mummy’s eyes open’.”

Police arrested the man the following day and he was remanded in custody.

The judgment said that between April 8 and June 25, the man had made 14 phone calls to his brothers in which he told them to contact the woman and urge her not to co-operate with police or give evidence against him.

The man was eventually banned from calling his brothers.

Soon after, he enlisted the help of a fellow prisoner who would call his partner and have her conference call the woman.

“When a conference call was being connected to the (woman), (the prisoner) would hand the phone to the (man) who would then speak with (her) as soon as she answered the call,” the judgment said.

The court heard the two men talked about the woman as “a dog” and a “f---ing maggot” who needed to be “trained”, and they agreed there was a need to “kick this c---” and “play mind games with this bitch”.

In a victim impact statement read to the court after his guilty plea, the woman thanked her young daughter for saving her life, saying she believed she’d be dead but for her intervention.

“What I can’t let go of is the fact that he knew he was cutting off my breath and the piercing look in his eyes … I was looking at him and he was looking at me and I was thinking he’s really going to kill me today. The look in his eyes will haunt me forever,” she said.

The man appealed his sentence on several grounds, including that it was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal agreed the sentencing judge had not effectively applied the “totality principle” which ensures an offender is not subjected to a “crushing sentence” in keeping with his record and prospects when being sentenced for a number of offences.

The court agreed with two of his three points of appeal, and found he should be immediately eligible for parole given the time he had already served.

Originally published as ‘Crushing burden’: Parole date shortened for DV offender