‘I could have died’: Jail time for strangulation to be doubled under Qld plan

Offenders who strangle or choke someone could face up to 14 years behind bars under a proposal put forward by the Queensland Law Reform Commission to repeal the Criminal Code.

The commission, in releasing its consultation paper this week, said a number of reforms were needed, as victim-survivors continued to suffer not only at the hands of their perpetrator, but in the justice system during often years-long waits to secure a conviction.

In the proposal to change section 315A of the Criminal Code, which deals with non-fatal strangulation in a domestic setting, the QLRC also raised the complexities of how sexual strangulation had been normalised – especially among young people.

Non-fatal strangulation cases that proceed to trial can take up to two years to finalise in the court system, prolonging the trauma for victim-survivors.

Currently, the maximum penalty is seven years’ jail if a person chokes, suffocates or strangles another person without consent and they are either in a domestic relationship or the offence is associated with domestic violence.

‘This is the third time it’s happened, I’m probably going to die. I don’t know that I’m going to get out of the next one.’

Victim-survivor’s account to the QLRC

The section should change to instead include three new offences, with one prescribing a maximum penalty of 14 years’ jail, the QLRC proposed.

The Queensland Law Reform Commission’s proposal

Section 315A of the Criminal Code should be repealed and replaced with three new offences:

• Offence 1: unlawfully doing particular conduct that restricts respiration and/or blood circulation in the context of a domestic setting. This offence would prescribe a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

• Offence 2: unlawfully doing particular conduct in the context of a domestic setting. This offence would prescribe a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

• Offence 3: unlawfully doing particular conduct that restricts respiration and/or blood circulation. This offence would prescribe a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Source: QLRC 

In a report by the commission also released this month, victim-survivors described how they felt police had minimised the seriousness of the offending. In one incident, a victim said she had to email in her own police statement, and she questioned why officers did not take photos of her bruising immediately.

“I kept thinking it’s not that bad, it mustn’t be that bad. Until I think, I could have died. I could have died multiple times,” she told the QLRC.

Another victim said: “I had been pretty severely abused in a really intense amount of time. And at the strangulation point, I thought, ‘This is the third time it’s happened, I’m probably going to die. I don’t know that I’m going to get out of the next one.’”

The report says sometimes police do not appear to understand that there are often no, or minimal, visible injuries following strangulation. Many victims reported they had better experiences with medical and support services. In some instances, victims were unable to report they had been strangled because police stations were unattended or officers were too busy.

Our preliminary view is that a number of reforms are required. We need to ensure Queensland’s laws are safe, just and effective, and reflect the seriousness of non-fatal strangulation.

Fleur Kingham, QLRC Chair

Other victims detailed how they felt alone during the court process, often having to advocate for themselves or follow up repeatedly.

Strangulation is extremely traumatic for victims and has been likened to water boarding and torture, with many people feeling they were going to die, the report says. Proving the offence can also be difficult because of the physical effects on a victim’s memory.

Research showed about 50 per cent of charges laid under section 315A result in a finding of guilty, the QLRC report says. While non-fatal strangulation is a far more serious offence, perpetrators often end up facing charges of assault occasioning bodily harm instead.

From July 2022 to June 2024, 2243 non-fatal strangulation charges were lodged in the Magistrates Court of Queensland, the paper says. Of those, 82 per cent were committed to higher courts. During the same period, there were 41 charges in the Childrens Court.

Non-fatal strangulation offences – 315A statistics

Once committed to the District Court, the average time from lodgment in the Magistrates Court to finalisation was 501 days (just over 16 months). If dismissed in the District Court, that took, on average, about 18 months.  

Cases that resulted in a guilty plea were finalised faster, generally within 14 months. Those that went to trial took almost two years. The average sentence for offending under 315A was 2.7 years in 2022-23. Sentences have ranged from two months to 6.5 years.

Source: QLRC 

While the law provides a major role in raising awareness of the dangers of non-fatal strangulation, the QLRC said police, the court system, and educational sectors also play a large part in improving outcomes for victims.

“Sexual conduct is still often thought of as being private in nature, with people having a right to bodily integrity. What is acceptable in the sexual sphere is often regulated informally through social norms,” it said.

“However, this may be problematic in the context of young people, where sexual strangulation is normalised ... some of our stakeholders noted that the criminal law may not be the appropriate educative tool.”

Dating relationships are also excluded from the scope of “domestic relationship” under the law, the QLRC said.

Police and lawyers revealed examples of cases where the non-fatal strangulation offence could not be applied, such as in the incident of a six-week relationship initiated through Tinder, where the pair had lived interstate and were just “hooking up”.

In another incident, a victim was strangled a couple of weeks after meeting on Tinder, but police did not record it as strangulation because they were not in a “relevant relationship”. Four months later, when the victim was again strangled, police were able to proceed with the specific charge because they could establish the relationship.

The QLRC also suggested changes to the way consent could be included in the Criminal Code, such as applying the affirmative consent model, and also removing defences such as domestic discipline.

In one interview with the QLRC, a police officer was frustrated about a case where a teacher used the lateral vascular neck restraint to the point of unconsciousness against four primary school students. The teacher was charged with common assault and was later dismissed by a magistrate on the grounds of domestic discipline.

The QLRC is seeking feedback on its consultation paper, with a final report to be handed to Attorney-General Deb Frecklington by the end of September.

If you or anyone you know needs support, you can contact the National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service on 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732), the Red Rose Foundation on [phone], or DV Connect Women’s line on 1800 811 811.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.