‘Gutless’: 12 minutes captured of man’s brutal, horrendous assault on toddler

Distressing screams and wails can be heard in the 12 minute long CCTV footage which captured the sounds of a “brutal” assault on a toddler, including 140 strikes from a belt. Warning: Disturbing content

Generic image illustrating child abuse.

WARNING: DISTURBING CONTENT

The distressing screams, wails and cries of a 2.5 year old can be heard in a 12 minute long CCTV footage as 140 strikes from a leather belt are aimed at the toddler.

The footage was played in Rockhampton District Court this morning as the man who wielded the belt was sentenced after pleading guilty to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed – domestic violence.

Crown prosecutor Matthew Sutton said CCTV captured the sounds of up to 140 strikes.

The child could be heard screaming in pain, wailing and sobbing throughout the ordeal.

The sounds of whips initially came in spurts of about 10 at a time and they got louder as the assault went on, with less strikes coming in spurts towards the end.

Mr Sutton described them as a “constant flurry” of strikes which could not be proven to have all made contact with the victim’s body, but there were 20 distinguishable bruises identified by the pediatrician from this assault on a defenceless toddler, indicating at least 20 which made contact.

“It is horrendous offending,” Mr Sutton said.

The prolonged “brutal” assault carried out in an Allenstown unit left the child with “extensive bruising”.

Six photographs depicting the victim’s injuries were handed to Judge Jeff Clarke in an envelope marked “sensitive”.

Judge Clarke described the man’s actions as “irrational, disproportionate and excessive, ugly use of force” which caused the significant bruising on the child’s back, buttocks and the back of his legs – breaking some of his skin.

He said the child also had bruises to his arms, indicative of “shielding” from the “gutless, prolonged attack”.

Judge Clarke said the defendant can be heard in the CCTV saying “I’m not f---ing done yet” and the child’s crying, wailing and screaming throughout the ordeal was “hard to listen to”.

He questioned whether the mother of the child intervened in anyway, but Mr Sutton said he did not know.

The belting was heard by members of the public who called police on December 19.

The attacker, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and the child’s mother initially denied there was a disturbance.

The police demanded to see the child and upon seeing “obvious marks” on the child’s back, the attacker told police the marks were from a rash.

Defence barrister Maree Willey said the child’s mother initially told police she hit the child with the leather belt and the defendant had nothing to do with it.

Judge Clarke asked “what was going on in that relationship for her to do that?”, to which Ms Willey responded she didn’t know.

“He (defendant) eventually went on to admit that he had struck a child with a belt (and) that he was disciplining him,” Mr Sutton said.

The man told police he was disciplining the child because he hadn’t eaten his dinner and did not put his plate in the sink when told to.

He claimed he only struck the child four or five times.

“This is not a case of domestic discipline that has gone a bit too excessive or anything of that nature,” Mr Sutton said.

He said 140 “blows fall outside of any prospect idea of domestic discipline”.

Mr Sutton said the defendant, in those admissions, sought to minimise “what has actually occurred”.

“One would hope that child doesn’t remember any of this,” he said.

The child is now in his biological father’s care.

Both the defendant and mother of the child were originally charged with one count each of torture and assault occasioning bodily harm.

Mr Sutton advised the court the mother’s charges and the defendant’s torture charge had been dropped.

During his sentencing submissions, Mr Sutton said he “could not find a case of a single assault of this magnitude” to assist the judge in determining an appropriate sentence.

Ms Willey also could not find such a comparable case.

She said her client had been raised in a violent home, with his father in and out of prison during his childhood due to violence and his mother using violence to discipline him and his siblings.

Ms Willey said the defendant claimed his mother would hit him with a cord, choke him or punch him if she believed he wasn’t listening to her.

She said he had referred to himself as “stupid” and a “dumb c--t” and this incident had “snapped him into reality”.

Ms Willey said her client, who is not a parent and is not currently in a relationship with anyone, undertook a father’s course after he was released on bail in June this year.

She submitted a 2.5 year prison term suspended after 176 days, which her client had served in presentence custody, while Mr Sutton submitted a three-year prison term and for the defendant to serve one year.

The court heard the defendant had one entry for property offending on his criminal record for which he was ordered to 12o hours community service and no conviction recorded, along with a domestic violence offence for a fight with one of his siblings.

Judge Clarke sentenced the defendant to 2.5 years prison to be suspended after 176 days served, declared the presentence custody as time served and ordered there be a four-year operational period.

Originally published as