STATE OF TASMANIA v DAVID BRETT FARNELL 4 SEPTEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE SHANAHAN CJ
David Brett Farnell you have pleaded guilty to three counts on indictment 29/2025 being counts 1, 4 and 5. Those counts are one count of strangulation contrary to s 170B of the Criminal Code and two counts of assault contrary to s 184 of the Criminal Code. The balance of the counts on the indictment were the subject of a nolle prosequi on 16 June 2025. Whilst complaint 5843/2023 was filed with the papers there is no application under s 385A of the Code and I have disregarded that complaint for the purposes of sentencing.
You were born on 11 January 1972, and at the time of these crimes, on 12 May 2023, you were aged 51. The complainant in each matter is Julia May Mitchell, date of birth 8 February 1970. At the material time she was aged 53.
In May 2023 you and the complainant were in a relationship and had been for approximately 12 months. You were residing at [address specified] in Clarendon Vale with the complainant’s teenage son, who was then aged 15.
At that time the complainant had only recently been allocated that home by Housing Tasmania. Prior to residing in Clarendon Vale, you and the complainant had spent time residing in a caravan in a number of locations in the greater Hobart area.
The house at [address specified], Clarendon Vale is a two-bedroom home with an open‑plan kitchen, dining and lounge area. There is a hallway that leads to the main bedroom, the combined bathroom and laundry, and the second bedroom.
On Thursday, 11 May 2023 you and the complainant were at home on your own. At approximately 9.20pm, you and the complainant were in the open plan lounge and dining area. The complainant was seated at the dining table and you were on the couch.
You made a number of comments to the complainant, including that you were unhappy that she was trying to fix the television. Because the complainant was trying to fix the television, you said words to the effect of, “Oh, I’m not getting my coffee then.” And the complainant responded that perhaps you could make her a coffee.
You became angry and threw a plastic drink bottle across the room towards the complainant. The drink bottle hit a window near the complainant and this broke the flyscreen and damaged the blind. You got up and approached the complainant. You scruffed and threw her to the floor in the lounge room and kitchen area a number of times. I understand that “scruffing” in this instance means grabbing the complainant by the arms and/or shoulder area and throwing her.
The complainant tried to protect herself and pushed you away a number of times but this did not deter you. The complainant ended up near the fridge.
You approached the complainant and pushed her up against the fridge. You placed both of your hands around her neck, so that your thumbs were in the middle of her throat and your fingers were at the back of her neck. You squeezed your hands together very tightly, which impacted upon the complainant’s breathing, making her feel as though she could not breathe.
You then removed one of your hands from the complainant’s neck and punched the fridge next to her head. Your holding the complainant by her neck caused her significant pain. They are the matters that relate to count 1 on the indictment, the count of strangulation.
The complainant then went into their bedroom to remove herself from the situation.
You followed her into the bedroom, grabbed her by the arms and threw her onto the bed. While she was faced down on the bed, you pulled her hair.
The complainant told you to leave multiple times.
You then pushed your face into hers and told her you were going to smash her face in. You repeated that comment during the time you were in the bedroom together. You grabbed the complainant by her arms and threw her around the room a number of times and the complainant tried to push you away from her multiple times.
You threw the complainant onto the floor and you knelt down beside her, placed her in a headlock while she was on her hands and knees and twisted her head and neck. The complainant was scared and she thought she was going to die. Throughout this entire incident, you were also verbally abusing the complainant, calling her a ‘whore’, ‘slut’, and a ‘cunt’. You asked the complainant a number of times where you were going to go, referring to where you were going to live.
The complainant got you off of her by throwing her body around. The complainant thought you were going to stomp on her face because of your repeated threats to smash her face in. Throughout this incident, the complainant felt pain throughout her body. These are the matters relating to count 4 on the indictment.
The complainant was terrified and she went to the front door of her unit to where the alarm panel was located. She pressed as many buttons as she could, hoping she could activate the alarm and someone would come and help her. The alarm went off but you disarmed it and turned the alarm off. As a result no‑one came to help the complainant.
The complainant went into the bathroom and tried to lock the door to protect herself. You followed her into the bathroom and locked the door behind you. You scruffed the complainant again, by grabbing her by the arms and throwing her around the bathroom multiple times. You would not let the complainant leave the bathroom.
At one stage, you grabbed the complainant by the arms and put your face close to hers and verbally abused her. You then headbutted her once to the face. Throughout the time in the bathroom, you verbally abused the complainant and insulted her in relation to the relationship she had with her son. The complainant was able to push you away and she then fled the bathroom. The complainant tried to leave the home but you pushed her away from the door a number of times. On one occasion, you pushed her to the floor. The headbutting and scruffing in the bathroom are the subject of count 5 on the indictment.
Throughout the incident, the complainant continually asked you to leave but you declined to do so and told her that all couples have fights, and you said you were going to make yourself a coffee.
The complainant then told you that she was going to call the police and you asked her why and said you had done nothing wrong. The complainant described the attack you had made on her and you told the complainant she had hurt herself, and then you slapped at your own face.
The complainant fled the house and ran onto the footpath. She was suffering from significant pain. The complainant went to her next‑door neighbour’s house and sought help. The neighbour called police and allowed the complainant to wait with her until police arrived.
Police attended the scene and called the Tasmanian Ambulance service to take the complainant to the Royal Hobart Hospital. The complainant was transported to the Royal Hobart Hospital, and as a result of the attack, she sustained a number of injuries including a sore and swollen lip, pain to the face, a sore and bruised left wrist, a headache, a bleeding nose, bruising to her neck including bilateral petechiae and ongoing neck stiffness and pain to her lower back. Her injuries exacerbated pre‑existing injuries to her neck, back and throat. That exacerbation added to the pain of her injuries.
The police subsequently located you in the caravan outside the complainant’s property. You had scratches on your face, and you explained that the complainant had caused these by scratching you.
Your account to police at the scene was that you threw something, and then the complainant was screaming at you to get out, and you kept saying, “Where am I going to go?” And she kept screaming.
You told police you had an asthma attack, and that the complainant would not let you get your medication. You said the complainant was screaming, kicking you and pulling your hair. You said that she was completely out of control, and you said that you were trying to settle her down and that she would not settle down.
You were arrested and transported to the police station. You declined to participate in a formal interview, but participated in an informal interview in the charge room, which was recorded on body-worn camera. Under caution, you stated that you held the complainant against the fridge in the kitchen, but did not squeeze her throat. The complainant was screaming and scratched your face, pulled your hair and was kicking. You were trying to calm her down and you held her out of anger. You said you were not trying to hurt her. You said, “She was being straight‑up nasty.”
I will not set out the balance of your account to police as I referred to your initial response to police only because it reveals a reticence to accept responsibility for your actions and rather to blame the complainant.
Following the interview with police, you were charged, processed and bailed. You were issued with a police family violence order. On 10 May 2024, the Hobart Magistrates Court issued a non-contact family violence order for a period of two years, to protect the complainant. I understand that that order remains current.
You have spent no time in custody for these offences.
There is no victim impact statement, but I accept that your offending would have had a significant impact on the complainant. It is readily understandable that she would have been very fearful of a serious if not fatal injury, and that is reflected in her multiple attempts to get away from you.
You have no prior convictions for violence. However, there are a number of prior convictions for dishonesty matters, and for drug possession and driving offences.
This was a sustained attack continued by you pursuing the complainant through the house. You refused to desist. It must have been terrifying for the complainant. The violence of your attack was persistent and inherently dangerous. This Court has often said that family violence is an evil in the community requiring general and specific deterrence. There are also aspects of your conduct which represent a breach of trust in that when you live with someone they have the right to an expectation that they will be safe in their own home.
I acknowledge your plea of guilty which has utilitarian value and spared the complainant the need to give evidence.
In mitigation it was put that you are now a 53 year old man with no relevant priors.
It was put that you had a fear in respect of securing long term accommodation, both you and the complainant had been on waitlists for significant periods of time and a tension developed between you because, despite you having been on a waitlist longer, the complainant received accommodation ahead of you. Whilst it is readily understandable that you may be frustrated with regard to the delay in obtaining housing, it is hard to see how you could blame the complainant for that. The complainant had a child who lived with her at the material time and that may well have affected her preferential priority for housing.
I was told that both you and the complainant were on medication and that if taken in excess, that medication caused difficulties in terms of behaviour, and that both of you had taken medication in excess at the material time. I understand the medication was a form of pain killer and you were experimenting to see if you could increase the therapeutic effect.
In the home detention report provided to the Court dated 28 July 2025 it is recorded that you have many physical injuries after having been hit by a car in 1987, including an acquired brain injury and an extensive facial reconstruction. You have chronic pain to neck, back and knees and you suffer from asthma and emphysema. You were diagnosed with bi-polar disorder in 2006.
You have been a recent user of methylamphetamine and have struggled with benzodiazepine addiction following your car accident. The report states that you currently receive support from the Alcohol and Drug Service through the Suboxone Program.
It is unclear what medication you took on the relevant day but it is for you to manage your medication especially if there are risks associated in terms of your behaviour. I am told that whilst you have a memory of the incident there are a lot of things that you don’t specifically recall in relation to this matter. With an acquired brain injury experimenting with medication beyond a prescribed dose is obviously dangerous both to you and others.
Following sentencing submissions, by email to the Court dated 6 August 2025, I received further information regarding your medical history. The history that I have already set out was confirmed. I was also told that you suffer from chronic pain as a result of the 1987 car accident and you are currently prescribed Suboxone. You are currently booked in to see a neurosurgeon to see whether any surgical procedure could provide relief. I am told that you have a massage machine for your neck which assists with pain management. Obviously that would not be available to you if you were to serve a prison sentence.
Pain management medications are impacting upon your digestive system and starting to cause problems, which is another reason why you are exploring surgical options. It is put that your access to medication will be limited in prison.
I am told that you are the victim of past sexual abuse, and that this continues to affect you. The arrest, and body search on arrest, was traumatic for him. He had not previously been arrested and accordingly this was his first experience of such a search. The search was confronting and brought back memories of abuse. Of course that should give you some empathy for the complainant and what you put her through.
I am also told that in custody urinalysis testing occurs on a random monthly basis. The process engaged for such testing is the same as that undertaken by Community Corrections. It is said that you would therefore find the testing procedure very traumatic and confronting.
It was submitted that this offending is out of character. Given the absence of relevant priors, I am prepared to accept that your offending was out of character; but it was sustained and it was serious. I do not accept that your offending scared you as much as you scared the complainant and that is evident in your behaviour generally immediately after your offending, and in your reports to police at that time when you sought to blame the complainant.
You have now secured accommodation which I understand has had a significant beneficial impact on your life. I am told you have engaged with a church group and you are living in the New Norfolk area, which was described as quiet and rural. You now have a dog which appears to figure in your own sense of a new found stability.
Usually someone facing charges like this would be looking at a period of imprisonment to be served immediately. You have been assessed as unsuitable for home detention and unsuitable for community service, but suitable for community supervision. These assessments, if accepted, provide limited sentencing dispositions.
Home detention would normally be something that I would consider but in this instance it is not recommended.
It is to your credit that you have taken steps to find a more stable life style in the period you have been dealing with these charges but that has to be balanced against the violence you perpetrated on the complainant.
Domestic or family violence is now wide spread in this community, some would say it has become a scourge, and it is often committed by offenders who are otherwise of good character and without a criminal history. It is clear that general and specific deterrence are very important matters to be considered in offending of this type. In this instance you demonstrated no remorse in the immediate aftermath of this incident but it appears that you may have since developed some insight into your offending.
I have taken the matters put in mitigation into account. Whilst I acknowledge that you have no relevant prior offending, you showed little remorse or insight in the immediate aftermath of your offending, and the objective seriousness of your criminal conduct and your moral culpability for it is high and requires the imposition of a period of imprisonment.
The only issue remaining is whether that sentence of imprisonment should be suspended coupled with a community correction order. By the very slimmest of margins I have decided that because this was apparently out of character and because of your efforts to rehabilitate yourself since this offending occurred, I will suspend the terms of imprisonment to be imposed and couple it with a community correction order.
David Brett Farnell, you are convicted on the indictment on each of the three relevant counts, being counts 1, 4 and 5. I impose a single sentence in respect of all counts. I impose a period of imprisonment of 24 months’ imprisonment, which is wholly suspended for 18 months on the condition that you do not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment. If you do re-offend you can be re-sentenced, ultimately it is up to you. If you were to be re-sentenced imprisonment is not an unlikely outcome.
In addition, I make a community correction order with an operational period of 18 months. The core conditions required by the Sentencing Act 1997 apply to this order and will be set out in the order that you will be given. These include that you must report to a probation officer at the office of the Community Corrections in Hobart within 3 clear working days of this order, you must submit to supervision and comply with the directions given by your probation officer, you must not leave Tasmania without permission and you must notify any change of address.
I also include the following special condition that you must, during the operational period of the order:
- Submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer by attending anger management programs, undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol or drug dependency, submit to testing for alcohol or drug use and submit to psychological or psychiatric assessment as directed by that officer.
Your future is now in your own hands.