STATE OF TASMANIA v CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GOSS WOOD J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 26 SEPTEMBER 2019
Christopher Michael Goss has pleaded guilty to unlawfully injuring property, assault and perverting justice.
The crimes were committed on 2 and 3 December 2017. The background is that the defendant and Roxanne Goss had been in a relationship for approximately 12 years, and had been married for six of those years. They have two children, a son born in 2012 and a daughter born in 2016. There was a family violence order in place, and that had been in place since May 2017. A condition of the order was that the defendant was not to directly or indirectly threaten, abuse or assault Roxanne Goss. The order did not preclude contact between them.
On the morning of 2 December 2017 the defendant and Ms Goss argued. They were at their home in Molesworth. The defendant became angry with the complainant because she was intending to go out that night with her friends. He instructed her that she could go to the dinner but was not to go out afterwards.
The defendant left the house and kicked the driver’s door of her motor vehicle, a Nissan X-trail at least three times. He said “go on, call the cops now”. His kicking caused some damage to the door.
The complainant called the police and made a statutory declaration which outlined the events of the morning and sought an order preventing the defendant from contacting her.
The following day, 3 December, the complainant went to the defendant’s parents’ home at Glenfern. The children had stayed there the previous night. At around 2pm the defendant arrived at the house. He was angry and threatened to kill the complainant and their children if she did not stay in a relationship with him.
The complainant told the defendant that she had made a statement to police and that she was getting a restraint order against him. The defendant became upset and angry; he cried and yelled at the complainant “I’m taking the kids now.” She told him he was not taking the children anywhere. The defendant assaulted Ms Goss by punching her to the left eye causing bruising and swelling.
The defendant entered his parent’s house, collected their son, B and left in the complainant’s vehicle. She tried to stop him from leaving and he said to her “What are you going to do? You will never see him again”.
The complainant called the police and made a statutory declaration detailing what had happened. About an hour later the defendant started sending the complainant text messages. The chain of texts began with the defendant saying “U got one chance to fix this within the hour”. The complainant responded saying she would withdraw her statement and drop the charges, “I can’t have you hurting our boy”. The defendant responded with a text message which included references to the fact that he was in a desperate state, “I’m on the edge and ready to go”, that he would not go back in there, presumably a reference to prison, that she should take him seriously, and she was to “make the call and take the bullshit back and tell them I done nothing and that its shit or this is my goodbye.” He ended the text with “B said to tell u…love u mum”.
Another text informed her time was “running out fast”. Another one was a thinly veiled threat to kill their son: “either way I will never be without my son! Never!!!”
The complainant responded by assuring him she knew it was not a joke, she had spoken to police and pleaded with him not to hurt their son.
He responded saying “just remember whether we are with you or not we love you no matter what.” The complainant’s text responses pleaded with him not to hurt their child and assuring him she had done what he had asked. He replied aggressively with a text, “bullshit” and asking for proof that she had told the police it was “bullshit” and that she wanted them as a family. He sent another text “Tell them you lied tell them I done cause u got 45 mins left or I’m outa here n my boy comes with me.” Another text from him informed her “its almost game over”. She told him she had to do a statutory declaration to withdraw it and pleaded with him again. He replied telling her she had “40 mins” and “U done this not me”. She responded blaming herself and pleaded with him again. He told her it was too late and then after a desperate text from her he said “go and sign the stat dec then and I wana see it”. She told him she was going to.
The complainant was in contact with a police officer from the New Norfolk Police Station and made arrangements to go in to the station.
The defendant continued to text the complainant demanding to see the statutory declaration. He sent her a photograph of their son and a text which included “if I can’t be with him he will forever be by my side! No more games shits real and I’m not scared no more!” He sent her another photo and text saying, “I will never be without him”. A further text told her to hurry they had just issued a warrant for him.
The complainant attended the New Norfolk Police Station and asked the officer if she could do a fake statutory declaration saying that she had withdrawn the charges. She explained she needed to send it to the defendant so he would not harm their son. She signed a fake statutory declaration saying that she wanted to withdraw the statements she had made previously and that she would not attend court.
The complainant sent the defendant a photo of the statutory declaration. The complainant asked him to return B and he demanded to know where she was. When she said she would not tell him because he had hit her and she was scared, he replied it was the last time he would ask her, that he had warned her, and that she had 2 minutes to call him or it was over. He then sent further aggressive messages telling her he had warned her and that she had tried to take him for a fool: “I’m done I’m out and my boy isn’t leaving me nor am I leaving him”.
He then sent further messages clearly designed to convey that any suggestion he had assaulted her or damaged her property were lies.
After the defendant had taken B at around 2:45 pm on 3 December, the police had begun actively looking for them. Police negotiators were engaged that evening and several attempts were made to contact the defendant by mobile phone without success.
On 4 December police negotiators made contact with the defendant. He was unwilling to present himself to police or to allow B to return to the complainant. That afternoon, he sent another text to the complainant, this time adopting a conciliatory tone, telling her it was time to tell the truth about how she got the marks on her face and that it had happened while she was out on the town instead of putting him in the “shit” for something he hadn’t done. He said he was only playing games and what he had said in messages was only to bait whoever had her phone and it was totally untrue and fabricated for that reason.
An extensive police search continued that day. On 5 December at around 10:30am the defendant was found by police at a hotel in Hobart with B. The defendant participated in a police interview in which he stated that he did not recall whether there is a family violence order in place, he has problems with his memory due to a medical condition and he declined to comment about the allegations.
The complainant has provided a victim impact statement in which she says that the crimes were traumatising. She and her son were going to have counselling.
The defendant has relevant prior convictions. He committed two offences of assault in 2001, one in 2005, and one in 2013. He has convictions for breaches of a police family violence order relating to Ms Goss, committed in February 2017 which attracted a partially suspended sentence. He breached that partially suspended sentence of 3 months by committing these crimes. That sentence was activated in February this year. He has prior convictions for offences of destroy or injure property in 2002, 2005 and 2016. Relevantly he also has convictions for offences of dishonesty and other unlawful conduct such as selling cannabis, possession of firearms, drink driving and driving whilst disqualified. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment this year for trafficking in a controlled substance relating to the period 6 January to 5 December 2017. He committed 13 breaches of a family violence order protecting Ms Goss immediately after the commission of these crimes in December 2017 and January 2018. These breaches involved contacting Ms Goss indirectly, and his children directly, from Risdon Prison. After the commission of the crimes before the Court today he committed numerous breaches of a family violence order protecting the same complainant in August – October 2018. He has revealed a complete disregard for the family violence order both before and after the commission of these crimes. The defendant has not spent any time in custody that could be attributable to these crimes. He served a sentence from 5 December 2017 to 8 August 2018. He was released from prison that day and bailed in relation to these crimes. He reoffended by breaching the family violence order as mentioned and also breaching his bail and was remanded in custody. Since then suspended terms of imprisonment have been activated and he has been sentenced to imprisonment. He is presently serving a sentence of 2 years and six months backdated to 5 September 2018, with 12 months suspended and a non-parole period of 9 months. His non parole period expired on 3 June 2019.
The defendant is 36 years of age. At the time of offending the defendant was in the grip of a heavy addiction to methamphetamine. He had developed that addiction after a car accident in which he sustained a serious hand injury. The crime of trafficking arose out of that addiction.
That addiction was a contributing factor to his appalling behaviour in the commission of these crimes, it is a stark example of the destructive and corrupting impact of this insidious drug, but it is not mitigatory.
He has been in custody serving other sentences since 8 October 2018, and I am conscious of the need to reflect the totality principle, that is to take into account the cumulative effect of the sentence I impose today and the aggregate periods he will spend in custody to ensure it is not disproportionate to the totality of his offending.
While in custody the defendant has used his time well. He has taken significant steps towards his reform by participating in and completing courses. He has undertaken the EQUIPS addiction program and drug and alcohol counselling. He has completed the Circle of Security parenting course and he has gained insight about the impact family violence has upon children, and has benefited from that course. He has enrolled in the EQUIPS aggression program. He has recently been assessed as suitable for the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program. He is willing to participate in the Bridge residential program on his release. He has prospects of employment on his release and he has a sound and industrious work record to draw on.
He is remorseful for his conduct and has expressed that in a letter handed to me by his counsel. He has insight in relation to the damaging effects of his behaviour on his former partner and children.
He has pleaded guilty to these crimes, at a relatively late stage and a commensurate reduction in his sentence is appropriate.
He has initiated family law proceedings with respect to spending time with his children, he recognises that there is a need for orders that bring clarity and safeguards to future contact arrangements.
These are serious crimes. The assault was a single vicious punch to the head, after an argument when the defendant had threatened to kill the complainant and their children if she did not stay with him. The precipitating factor was her telling him that she was seeking lawful protection and because he was not getting his way in relation to the relationship.
The crime of perverting the course of justice is one of the most serious I have seen. The defendant’s demands that she revoke her complaint and allegations to police were persistent and aggressive. His threats to kill their child were calculated to terrify her into submission. They did terrify the complainant. He subjected her to a highly traumatic situation for his own selfish purpose. It is chilling to read the texts and to see how he crafted the threats so that she would believe he intended to carry them out.
An aggravating factor of the crimes is that he was subject to a family violence order to protect the complainant and the children. His purpose was to have her withdraw her allegations of assault and damage property and any application for a protective order. Persons who allege that they are the victim of family violence are entitled to the protection of the law against pressure and threats from alleged perpetrators to withdraw evidence. Victims of family violence may often be vulnerable to pressure given imbalances in the relationship or given the history of the relationship. The stakes are high and alleged perpetrators of family violence know that heavy sentences are being imposed by the courts for acts of family violence. General deterrence is an important consideration in cases of perverting justice. In the case of perverting justice to avoid conviction for family violence or the imposition of a family violence order, the need for general deterrence is particularly marked.
In fixing the sentence I also take into account the principle of totality as I have mentioned, and that the defendant’s prospects of rehabilitation should be encouraged, particularly given the steps he has taken. However, a heavy penalty is nonetheless required and must, in my view, be inevitable given the nature of these crimes, the harm caused to the complainant and the children and the potential implications for the course of justice. If it had not been for the steps that the defendant has taken in relation to his rehabilitation, the penalty would have been more severe in terms of length and also in terms of the non-parole period.
I record convictions. The sentences I impose are to be served cumulatively with your current sentence. For the crime of assault I impose nine months’ imprisonment. In relation to the crime of perverting justice I impose 18 months’ imprisonment to be served cumulatively to the sentence of nine months. The charge of unlawfully injuring property attracts a sentence of one month imprisonment to be served concurrently, that is, at the same time as the sentence I have imposed for the assault. The total is 27 months’ imprisonment.
I suspend a small part of the sentence of 18 months which I have imposed for the crime of perverting justice, being three months. That is suspended for a period of 18 months from the date of your release. You are not to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for that period of 18 months. Conditions of suspension are that you be subject to the supervision of a probation officer for 18 months and must comply with all reasonable directions regarding attending a family violence intervention program and drug and alcohol assessment, treatment and counselling, including attendance at and completion of a drug residential program if directed by your probation officer.
The effective term is 24 months, to be served cumulative to the current sentence. You are not to be released on parole until you have served the minimum of one half of the immediately effective term I have imposed today, that is, until you have served 12 of the 24 months.
Pursuant to s 13A of the Family Violence Act, I declare these crimes family violence offences.
[NOTE: On 3 December 2019, Wood J varied the sentence pursuant to s 94(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act, to clarify that separate non-parole periods were imposed for separate sentences of imprisonment (s17(2)(b) Sentencing Act), so that the defendant would get the benefit of parole eligibility as intended. The sentence was varied by adding the following:
The defendant is not eligible for parole until he has served four and half months imprisonment of the 9 month term of imprisonment imposed for the crime of assault and until he has served seven and a half months of the immediately effective period of 15 months’ imprisonment for the crime of perverting justice.]