STATE OF TASMANIA v JAMIE PATRICK GADD 22 AUGUST 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
The defendant, Jamie Patrick Gadd, has pleaded guilty to one count of assault and one count of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm contrary to s 170 of the Criminal Code. On 31 March 2022, the defendant assaulted his wife, Janine Maree Gadd, by punching her to the head. On 8 April 2022, he stabbed her with a knife intending to cause her grievous bodily harm.
There are matters of background relevant to the offending. At the time of the offending, the defendant and his wife had been married for approximately 30 years. They have been in a relationship since high school, and they have three daughters together who were born when the couple were in their early twenties. They lived together at Old Spring Bay Road in Swansea. Their daughters are now adults and have left home.
The defendant has a history of employment, most recently in the fisheries industry, but he had been unemployed since around 2020.
For the last 20 years of the marriage, there been a pattern of infrequent occasions when the defendant was aggressive and violent towards the complainant after consuming alcohol. He would become angry with her over minor matters or for no apparent reason at all. When angered, he would assault her by pulling her hair, punching her, twisting her arm, or squeezing her hand. The complainant was unable to calm him down or reason with him. The conduct would cease when the complainant left the residence, or the defendant fell asleep or passed out. When the complainant left the residence, she would stay away for enough time for the defendant to go to bed before she would return.
The complainant did not contact police on these occasions, but rather attempted to handle the matter herself by avoiding the defendant when he was in this state. She would try and talk to him about his behaviour the following day, but the defendant would respond by saying that he could not remember what had occurred, or by denying his aggressive and violent conduct.
Then, in the two years prior to his offending when he was unemployed, his consumption of alcohol escalated. His abusive conduct increased in frequency to approximately once a month, and even more frequently in the two weeks prior to the offending.
On 31 March 2022, the defendant left the residence and was away for the day, returning at approximately 6:00 pm in the evening in a drunken state. Upon returning home, he was argumentative with and aggressive towards the complainant. He said to her, “Do you want me to smash your nose?” and the complainant told him she did not. He then punched her very hard to the top of her head with his clenched fist.
The complainant immediately ran to the bedroom and locked the door. He followed her and banged on the locked door. She barricaded the door, and he was unable to gain entry. After a while, he stopped banging on the door and went to bed, and the complainant stayed inside the locked bedroom for the night.
The next morning, she tried to speak with the defendant about what he had done, but he told her he could not remember the events of the previous evening.
It is not suggested that the complainant sustained physical injury as a result of this assault, however, it was the kind of forceful blow that could easily have resulted in a serious injury.
On 8 April 2022, the defendant left home at approximately 8:30 am and returned at around 7:00 pm that evening in a drunk and agitated state.
When the defendant entered the residence, the complainant was sitting in the lounge room with their dog on her lap. The defendant picked up the dog and threw it outside the house. The complainant did not say anything to the defendant as she was frightened of angering him further. He returned to the lounge room and laid down on the couch and punched himself several times to the head.
The defendant got up, walked into the toilet, and began to smash and damage the toilet by kicking it. The complainant asked him to stop damaging the toilet and told him he was being stupid. He then walked out onto the back deck area of the residence and threw furniture and pot plants from the deck onto the back lawn, causing several items to smash.
The complainant followed him outside and asked him to stop damaging things and he responded by telling her that he had to do it and that she knew he had to do it. She told him she was going to call the police if he did not stop, expecting this to stop him. However, this agitated the defendant further and he told her he would kill her if she rang the police. He then said, “You know how this ends”.
The complainant ran inside and closed the glass sliding door that led onto the deck, shutting the defendant outside. The door did not have a working lock. The defendant tried to open the sliding door, but the complainant held it shut. While he was trying to force his way inside, he threatened the complainant, telling her that if she called the police, he would kill her and her family.
The complainant called triple zero, requesting police assistance.
The complainant told the defendant she had already called the police and that they would be there shortly. The defendant told her to “call them off”, saying if anything happened, he would kill her mother and father first. The complainant told the defendant she would not and that the police were coming. He walked away from the glass sliding door and out of the complainant’s sight.
As well as calling emergency services, the complainant, in a frightened state, called her daughters, seeking their help. Hearing the level of distress in their mother’s voice, as well as the sounds of the defendant attempting to gain entry into the house, they also called triple zero seeking assistance for their mother.
The defendant made his way around the side of the house towards the front door. On his way, he picked up a block buster that was kept outside.
He then used the block buster to try and smash open the locked front door, damaging a stained-glass panel. He was unsuccessful in breaking open the front door and moved around to the back door of the house. He used the block buster to smash the lock off the back laundry door, forcing it open and gaining entry to the house.
The complainant made a second call to triple zero. I have listened to both calls and the second records the defendant smashing his way into the house, and the complainant screaming in terror while he attacks her. It is chilling.
The defendant entered the house, dropped the block buster, and approached the complainant.
He took hold her of hair and dragged her into the kitchen where he pushed her up against the kitchen bench and punched her several times to the head and body.
He picked up a butcher’s knife which was nearby in a container on the bench. He kept this and other butcher’s knives in the kitchen for the purpose of food preparation. The knife he picked up was approximately 20-30 cm in length and extremely sharp.
The defendant held the knife pointing at the complainant’s abdomen and drove it towards her, stabbing her in the stomach area, with the intention of causing her grievous bodily harm. As he did this, the complainant grabbed his sleeve, pushing his arm away from her and preventing the knife from fully penetrating her to the handle.
The defendant and the complainant struggled for a short period, with the defendant continuing to try to drive the knife into her stomach while she screamed at him to stop, yelled for help, and pushed back at his arm and the knife. The complainant sustained two defensive wounds to her left hand in the struggle.
Several neighbours who had heard the complainant screaming entered the residence through the smashed open back door. They witnessed the defendant continuing to thrust the knife towards the complainant’s stomach while she struggled to hold it back. The neighbours pulled the defendant away from the complainant, forced him to the ground, and disarmed him. They helped the complainant get away from the residence and they restrained the defendant until police officers arrived.
The complainant was initially taken to the Swansea General Practice doctor’s surgery but was transferred to the Royal Hobart Hospital for further investigation and treatment of her abdominal wound. The wound was 3 cm in length to the left mid-lateral abdomen with associated bruising. The initial treating doctor estimated the wound to be approximately 4-5 cm deep.
A CT scan was conducted to assess for any injury to the deeper structures of the abdomen but did not show any internal injury. This wound was cleaned and closed with sutures.
The complainant sustained two defensive wounds, as mentioned. These were small lacerations to the palmar aspect of the fourth and fifth fingers of her left hand. They were also cleaned and closed with sutures.
Once police officers arrived, the defendant was arrested and taken to the Hobart Police Station. The incident was investigated by police. There was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s offending, which included statutory declarations taken from neighbours who entered the house when they heard the complainant screaming.
These neighbours who bravely intervened and tackled an enraged and intoxicated man to the ground while he was wielding a lethal weapon put themselves at significant risk and saved the complainant from a life-threatening situation.
The defendant was interviewed on 9 April 2022. During that interview, the defendant claimed he had no memory of either of the events on 31 March 2022 or 8 April 2022 as he was drunk on both occasions. He was charged and remanded in custody. He was released on bail on 11 April, and then in August he had a few short periods in custody until 20 August 2022 when he offended while on bail. He has been in custody since then.
The complainant has chosen not to provide a victim impact statement. It is obvious, however, from the very nature of the incident that this was a deeply traumatic experience, and the second triple zero call made by the complainant reveals her terror.
It is the kind of experience that is likely to result in long-term emotional and/or psychological harm.
The defendant is now aged 53. He has no prior convictions. On 20 August 2022, he committed a number of offences while on bail involving breach of bail conditions, breach of interim family violence order, and injure property. It related to a single incident after an episode of acute deterioration in his mental health when he consumed alcohol and removed his electronic monitoring device. It should be noted that the offences did not involve any attempt to circumvent the conditions in order to contact the complainant. On 26 July 2023, he was sentenced for these offences to a Community Correction Order of 18 months to commence at the end of his current period of imprisonment.
The defendant grew up in the Triabunna area and has lived there most of his life. He experienced a number of traumatic incidents as a child. His parents were alcoholics, and he was not encouraged to engage in a meaningful way with school. He struggled with literacy issues and in fact still does.
He left school during grade 10 to take up paid employment. He has a solid and varied work history in the Triabunna region involving work in the forest firefighting industry, as a qualified butcher including in a managerial capacity, and in the fishing industry.
His alcohol use became excessive when he was in his early twenties, following the death of his grandfather, who was a positive influence and role model and the person the defendant was closest to growing up. He struggled to cope with his grief and started using alcohol as a coping mechanism. He has a long history of binge-drinking.
I have a forensic psychological assessment provided by Dr Georgina O’Donnell who states that Mr Gadd presents with various conditions including Alcohol Use Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder.
His crimes were committed when he was heavily intoxicated. This was a major factor in his offending and so too in past instances of violence and aggression.
Dr O’Donnell notes that long-term binge drinking, and its neurological impacts, can lead to an increased risk of violent offending behaviour.
The defendant’s long-standing abuse of alcohol is inextricably linked to his mental health difficulties. Dr O’Donnell explains that underlying his drinking is a severe anxiety disorder, described as Social Anxiety Disorder with Obsessive-Compulsive traits, which has its origins in trauma exposure during childhood. He has struggled with significant anxiety since he was a young man. He is not someone who felt comfortable seeking appropriate medical treatment or discussing underlying issues.
He has some limitations in cognitive functioning. His full-scale IQ score was assessed by Dr O’Donnell to be in the Borderline range. In her opinion, his cognitive limitations lessen his ability to problem solve and cope with emotional stressors. She also highlights that the functional impacts of long-term binge drinking affect cognitive functioning.
In Dr O’Donnell’s opinion, his underlying mental health impairments have contributed causally to his alcoholism and his offending. For many years, he has consumed alcohol as self-medication to cope with his Social Anxiety Disorder. His underlying mental health conditions render him vulnerable to binge drinking and contribute to his alcohol abuse.
It is Dr O’Donnell’s opinion that his moral culpability is reduced due to the underlying impairments when compared with someone who does not experience these mental impairments.
He has struggled in the prison environment. He experienced a brief psychotic episode when in the medium security unit due to perceived threats and he experienced some intense paranoia at this time, requiring treatment. Dr O’Donnell states that in view of his Social Anxiety Disorder and cognitive limitations, it is very difficult for him to cope with threats in a male prison environment. His condition has stabilised since being housed in the Southern Remand Centre, but he could relapse if relocated to another part of the prison.
I am informed that the prison authorities will consider Dr O’Donnell’s assessment, and that he will be reviewed by the Therapeutic Services Unit in determining his placement within the prison. I accept that if he is transferred to another part of the prison, it is likely to weigh more heavily on the defendant than it would someone who does not experience the impairments that he does, and I will take that prospect into account.
In other respects, his remand in custody has had a punitive effect. There have been periods of restrictive lock-downs for up to five days at a time and these periods have been difficult for all prisoners and remandees.
He has three young grandchildren and has had a very close relationship with them, and he has found it difficult being separated from both his grandchildren and his daughters.
His anxiety is now being appropriately managed; he is receiving counselling in the prison environment and prescribed medication which represents a significant breakthrough.
He has been abstinent from alcohol since offending, including periods of time he was on bail, apart from the one occasion I mentioned. He recognises now that his consumption of alcohol escalated to a degree that was unacceptable and to a problematic level. That recognition is a positive development in the right direction but, as yet, a sound appreciation of the seriousness of his conduct is absent, and there are indications of minimisation of responsibility.
Presently, the defendant is employed as a cleaner in the medical unit at the Southern Remand Centre. He has completed an alcohol and drug workshop offered by Drug Education Network.
On his release, he has family support. His daughters are supportive and in fact, he lived with them for some of the periods he was on bail. He will have housing options available to him and he is motivated to find employment and continue treatment in terms of his mental health.
Dr O’Donnell states that the defendant would benefit from further alcohol use relapse prevention counselling, participation in a family violence intervention program accommodating his learning needs, and engagement with a trauma-focused therapist to deal with underlying trauma and social anxiety.
There are, I find, prospects that the defendant will respond positively to this intervention. It is most important that he does; if not, there is a risk of future violence. I take into account his plea of guilty which facilitates justice and indicates an acceptance of responsibility.
Despite these personal considerations and the steps the defendant has taken towards his rehabilitation, there is a need to impose a sentence that will specifically deter him from any further such offending.
The crimes require strong condemnation. They both involve family violence and a breach of trust inherent in the relationship as the complainant’s husband. The crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause grievous bodily harm is a particularly serious example.
From the outset, the defendant’s behaviour towards the complainant was menacing and aggressive without any justification or reason. In an enraged state, he smashed property and threatened to kill the complainant, and took up a block buster to smash his way into the family home, a place where the complainant should have been safe from harm. The defendant was heavily intoxicated but that does not excuse or mitigate in any way his criminal behaviour. In fact, his intoxication, and his disinhibition and unpredictability, added to the very real danger he represented.
The defendant was determined to cause the complainant grievous bodily harm. Having punched the complainant several times to the head and body, he stabbed her to the stomach and then continued to try and further thrust the knife into her body. His efforts to achieve his purpose and overcome her resistance were sustained. He did not desist even when confronted by neighbours. It was only due to the complainant’s own physical efforts and those of neighbours that she did not suffer grievous or fatal injury.
Although it is the State’s case that he did not intend to kill the complainant, his conduct suggested he did, and she must have been terrified that she may die.
He bears responsibility for his appalling violence and his intoxicated state, particularly in circumstances where he had previously been told about other incidents of his drunken and violent behaviour. His criminal culpability, however, is reduced to some extent as compared to others because of his mental illness and its role in his abuse of alcohol. While general deterrence should be given a more limited operation in fixing the sentence than it ordinarily would, it remains an important consideration in such a grave case of family violence.
Domestic violence is an insidious, prevalent, and serious problem in our society.
I have taken into account his personal circumstances and in fixing the sentence, I have reduced the length of the term of imprisonment to reflect his moral culpability and I have allowed the minimum non-parole period. It is noted that he is to be subject to a Community Correction Order on his release from prison for a period of two years and the obligations of parole are expected to be compatible and beneficial, facilitating the implementation of Dr O’Donnell’s recommendations.
In relation to the two crimes, I will impose a global sentence. The assault warrants a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment, and the crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause grievous bodily harm for this particular offender requires a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. Because of totality considerations, I would allow part of the sentence of 6 months to be served concurrently.
I record convictions. I impose a global sentence of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment effective from 3 August 2022. The defendant is not to be eligible for parole until he has served a minimum of half of that sentence, namely 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
Pursuant to s 36 of the Family Violence Act, I make a final family violence order for a period of two and a half years in terms of conditions 1-11 of the interim family violence order dated 11 April 2022.
I order that the crimes before the Court be recorded as family violence offences by virtue of s 13A of the Family Violence Act.