STATE OF TASMANIA v DANIEL JAMES BEATTIE 19 NOVEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Daniel James Beattie, you were found guilty by a jury of the crime of persistent family violence. It is my duty to sentence you in accordance with that verdict.
There are several necessary implications that flow from the jury’s verdict. Firstly, the jury could only have returned a verdict of guilty if satisfied that your relationship with the complainant, Rebecca Dyett, constituted a significant relationship. The evidence on the trial established that you and the complainant had been friends for a number of years prior to an intimate relationship commencing. A characteristic of the friendship was that both you and the complainant were heavy illicit drug users. It seems your friendship developed from that association and transitioned into an intimate relationship in the latter part of 2020.
At the end of October 2020, the complainant moved into your unit in Penguin. Thereafter, the relationship was a sexual one and there was evidence of shared financial dependence and a degree of personal commitment to each other during the life of the relationship. Initially, the complainant said that the relationship was good, she described you as “treating her like a Queen”, but that was short lived. The relationship came to an end on 30 November 2020. The period in which the relationship could properly be described as a significant relationship was short, only about a month, but during that time you displayed controlling and violent behaviour towards her on a number of occasions.
The prosecution relied upon six separate occasions of violence occurring between 11 and 30 November 2020, but in addition to those behaviours, there was general evidence of your conduct during the relationship. You engaged in a course of conduct that involved threatening her, including threatening harm to her family and her dog. You would damage her property, including her mobile phone, and you would restrict access to her use of her mobile phones. You would make a number of implied threats, saying things to her like you were a “smiling assassin”. You would also demean her by telling her that she was lazy and that all of the difficulties within the relationship were her fault.
The jury clearly accepted the accuracy and honesty of the complainant’s account, and I also accept her account. She gave candid and frank evidence, describing the nature of the relationship. In addition to the general behaviour just described, there were six specified occasions of family violence left to the jury. I am satisfied they were all perpetrated by you in the manner described by the complainant.
I am also satisfied, however, that these were not the only occasions of violence. In particular, I am satisfied that in the last days of the relationship, between the 26th and 30th November, the complainant was subject to repeated violence, to the point where she found it difficult to distinguish one act from another. I will therefore sentence on the basis that the identified occasions were not isolated occurrences, although the main of the violence was perpetrated over those few days.
The first specified occasion occurred on 11 November 2020. The complainant had walked from your residence intending to go to a nearby shop. You followed in your motor vehicle. You pulled up adjacent to her whilst she was walking and told her to get into the car. Initially the confrontation was verbally aggressive, and she declined to do so. Your attitude then changed, however, and the complainant described that you became “nice”, so she got into the car. Very quickly, you again exhibited aggressive behaviour and the complainant was concerned. She jumped out of the car. She was standing on the side of the roadway. You stopped the vehicle, got out of the driver’s seat and ran around to the side of the vehicle to where the complainant was standing. You took hold of her by placing your hands around her neck. You lifted her off the ground by applying pressure to her neck area and attempted to force her into the car. The action involved a considerable amount of force. The complainant described that for a period, she was unable to breathe. A pedestrian who was in the area, called something out. With that, you stopped, and the complainant was able to get away. She went to a nearby shop and sought assistance. Police were called and when they attended they found her in a laneway in an upset and distressed state. She was reluctant, however, to give them a detailed account of what you had done. Following this incident, police issued a Police Family Violence Order against you, for the protection of Ms Dyett.
Portions of this incident were captured on the dashcam of a vehicle that was coincidentally driving by. This dashcam footage was tendered on the trial. The footage depicts a persistent and forceful effort on your behalf. You claimed during the trial that what the footage displayed was you trying to pull the complainant from the car because you had asked her to exit the vehicle, and she would not do so. I reject this account. In my view, it is not at all consistent with the dashcam footage.
The second occasion occurred on 23 November 2020. That date was the complainant’s birthday. On that day, you and the complainant had visited a friend of yours to obtain some cannabis. Apparently, the interaction between the complainant and your friend concerned you and later that day, you accused the complainant of “chatting up” your friend. There was an argument. It became violent. You hit the complainant to the head area on multiple occasions. The complainant described the assault as occurring over an extended period of time. Having observed her give her evidence as to this incident, it was apparent to me that she was not suggesting it was continual violence for the whole time, but rather that you continued to inflict blows intermittently, but regularly, during this period.
The violence started with you poking her to various parts of her body. Photographs tendered on the trial showed bruises entirely consistent with you having poked her with some force. Your violence escalated to punching her to the side of her head, the top of her head, and her forehead, on several occasions. She described having bruises and “sore spots” all over her body and having a number of “bumps” to her head. She said you would punch her to one side of her head for a period before punching her to the other side of her head.
Later that night, the complainant went for a birthday dinner with her mother. Her mother noted that she was upset and crying at times, which she thought was unusual given it was her birthday. She also noted that the complainant was not walking well. She asked the complainant whether everything was alright, and the complainant told her, although not in precise detail, that you had been hitting her. Her mother observed some bruises.
The third occasion occurred between 26 and 30 November. It again involved you assaulting the complainant. After the birthday dinner, the complainant had gone to stay at a friend’s place for a couple of days. She returned to your residence to collect some items. When she said that she was leaving, you told her that she “wasn’t going anywhere”. She was made to ring her friend and tell him that she would not be returning for dinner. There was an argument. It became violent. You punched her to the top of her head several times. The complainant described so many blows to her head that she believed she became unconscious at one point.
Thereafter, you prevented the complainant from leaving your residence for a number of days. During that period, there was further violence and threats. The complainant sustained a number of injuries. Some of the violence included you hitting her in the head with a phone. You also threatened to chop her head off with a chainsaw that was in the loungeroom at the property. The threat to chop her up with a chainsaw was a breach of the Police Family Violence Order that had been imposed on 11 November. This threat constituted the fourth specified occasion left to the jury.
The fifth occasion also occurred within this same period. At one point, you strangled the complainant. There was an argument about drugs. You accused her of having used heroin without sharing it with you. She was on the bed in the bedroom. You stood over her and placed your hands around her neck and applied pressure. The complainant could not breathe. She said she was trying to hold her breath, but after a time, could not. She was not sure whether she passed out, but she could recall struggling to breathe.
The sixth occasion was specified as an offence of unlawfully injuring property by breaking her mobile phones. The complainant described you broke several of her mobile phones during the relationship. She said it would happen during arguments, with the effect that it meant she could not contact anybody for help.
The complainant also described that during the two to three days leading up to the end of the relationship, that you refused to let her leave the residence and you would make her stay in the bedroom area. You made her sleep on the wall side of the bed so that she could not get out past you. During this time, you kept her mobile phone so she was unable to contact anyone. On Monday, 30 November, her mother called. The first call went unanswered, but eventually, the complainant was able to answer her mother’s call. Her mother realised from the tone of the complainant’s voice that there were difficulties. The phone was on speaker, and she called out that she was going to contact police. The complainant’s mother heard you say “Don’t call the police. We’re trying to work it out”. The complainant’s mother told the complainant to get out of the house and that she would contact police. Presumably, because you were fearful of police arriving, you told the complainant to leave the home. She did so. Her mother collected her. She was taken to the police station and then to the hospital.
Medical evidence tendered on the trial indicated the complainant attended the hospital twice during the life of the relationship. The first occasion was on 11 November. This was after the car incident. It was noted that she had a laceration to the bridge of her nose, ligature marks on her neck and was complaining of a sore right knee and left hip. She told hospital staff that you had assaulted her, but she was reluctant to provide detail and would not make a complaint to police. The second attendance was on 30 November 2020. It was noted that the complainant was very upset. A number of injuries were noted, including “racoon like” bruising to the right eye, linear abrasions to the forehead and left temple area, bruise to the right upper arm, bruises to both wrists, swollen and lacerated lips, bruises and swelling to her right upper and lower leg, small bruises to the upper and lower left leg, bruises on her back, her right buttock, and swelling to her hand. A CT scan showed a fracture of the zygomatic arch, being the cheekbone; and a fracture to the hyoid bone, being a bone under the neck. The complainant also told medical staff that something felt unusual with her jaw and the fit of her dentures. Ms Dyett’s injuries were treated conservatively. Police attended whilst she was at the hospital and a complaint was made.
It was obvious from the manner in which the complainant gave evidence and also from the reports she made to medical practitioners and the police, that she had a degree of reluctance to describe in detail how badly you had treated her. On a number of occasions during her evidence, the complainant said that she “did not want to go to the police, she did not want to be that person” and she also said she was embarrassed about what had been occurring. Such a reaction is not uncommon in situations of family violence. Victims are often vulnerable, and commonly reluctant to complain for a myriad of reasons, including shame, guilt, fear, unjustified self-blame, misguided loyalty, ongoing affection, and, quite simply, living within a culture of not complaining. Many of these aspects were apparent in the evidence of the complainant. Her reluctance to fully disclose what had been occurring, and her delay in telling others about the extent of the violence, did not, in my view, detract from her credibility. In fact, it had the contrary effect. It underlined the complexities of family violence and her vulnerability and highlighted the power imbalance that existed between you and her.
You are now aged 46. You were 41 when these crimes occurred. Your criminal record is relevant in sentencing. You have a criminal history in this State, as well as in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. You have been convicted of offences of common assault on a member of your own family and damaging property in South Australia in 1999 and 2001. You have been convicted of common assault in New South Wales in 2002. In Tasmania, you have prior convictions for breaching a restraint order and two counts of common assault in 2003. You were convicted of a further matter of common assault in 2009. In 2010, you were convicted of two counts of common assault and three breaches of a Police Family Violence Order. This resulted in the imposition of a period of imprisonment. In 2017, you were again convicted of common assault. Additionally, you have a number of convictions for driving offences, breaches of the Misuse of Drugs Act and bail offences. Generally, it would have to be said that you have a poor criminal history.
I am told that whilst you have a good work history, having been employed as a slaughterman for many years, your addiction to illicit drugs has been an ongoing difficulty for most of your life. You began using cannabis at the age of 13. You then turned to the use of amphetamine and, in turn, heroin, morphine and methyl amphetamine. Your use of drugs has resulted in a chaotic lifestyle at times and has impacted upon your family relationships. Your addiction has left you with a number of health issues. Your counsel submits on your behalf that after being charged with this crime, you recognised that there was a pressing need for you to address your drug addiction. You immediately started to reduce your use and obtained some formal drug counselling, including attending at Serenity House. Since you remand in custody for this matter, you have enrolled in a course at Risdon prison relevant to family violence offenders.
Approximately two years ago, you experienced a significant life event. Your grandfather, to whom you were very close, passed away. Just before his passing, you apparently made a promise to him that you would change your life for the better and you have been determined to keep that promise. You have continued to address your drug use. Your father describes that he has noticed a marked change in your attitude generally and the relationship you have with other family members. He says that he has noted a “dramatic improvement”.
The delay in this matter being finalised has been significant. That is for several reasons, but those reasons cannot be attributed to you. Delay, per say, is not a mitigating factor but when a defendant has made positive changes and rehabilitated themselves, it is a factor that can tend towards leniency. It is submitted that the positive changes you have made since this crime occurred ought to be viewed favourably in the formulation of sentence. Whilst I accept there have been a number of positive changes in your life over the last several years, that must be measured against the seriousness of this criminal conduct. Whilst the length of the significant relationship was limited, the violence you perpetrated upon the complainant in this period, was persistent and brutal, and some of it was very dangerous. It is well understood that applying pressure to a person’s neck to the extent their breathing is impaired, is an inherently dangerous thing to do. It can easily result in death, even if that is entirely unintended. Here, you must have applied significant force because you fractured the complainant’s hyoid bone. Similarly, the number of forceful blows I am satisfied you struck to her head, had the capacity to cause significant harm. As it was, she was left badly injured by your violence but it is fortunate that the injuries were not far worse.
You are not entitled to the mitigation a plea of guilty would have entailed, particularly because it would have spared the complainant the additional burden of having to give evidence. It was obvious that she found the giving of evidence difficult. She has been badly affected by your crimes. I have received an impact statement from her. I do not repeat it in detail as she has requested I read it to myself. It is sufficient to say that she has been deeply and perhaps permanently affected by your conduct, although I accept there were chaotic and damaging aspects of her life, which existed independently of this relationship. The complainant, by her own admissions, has struggled with drug addiction all of her life. Irrespective of that, the complainant undoubtedly suffered physical pain from your abuse. She was left heavily bruised and sore. Your abuse has also taken a significant toll on her mental and emotional well-being.
The family violence perpetrated by you was serious. You used actual violence and threats to attempt to control and dominate the complainant. It is an aggravating feature of your crime that all of the violence that occurred after 11 November, occurred in breach of a Police Family Violence Order. Violence within relationships, no matter their length, is to be condemned. It is a widespread and serious problem within our community. As has been frequently pointed out, the prevalence and devastating impacts of violence perpetrated against women in domestic circumstances, are well recognised across Australia by criminal courts and the community at large. There is a strong need for a court to provide such protection as it is able to provide, through the imposition of sentences that will act as both a personal and general deterrent. It simply must be understood that conduct of this nature is to be deplored, and it will be punished.
I acknowledge the positive changes you have made in more recent times; they are to your credit. But I also note that you have not demonstrated any remorse nor insight into the seriousness of your wrongdoing. In my view, a significant term of imprisonment must be imposed.
Daniel James Beattie, you are convicted of the crime of persistent family violence. Pursuant to s 13A of the Family Violence Act, I direct that this crime be recorded on your criminal record as a family violence offence. I am also satisfied it is appropriate to make a declaration pursuant to s 29A of the Family Violence Act. I make a serial family violence perpetrator declaration, to remain in place for a period of six years from today. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years and six months, commencing on 21 October 2025. I order that you are not eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence.