MOEAKIOLA, A

STATE OF TASMANIA v ALANI MOEAKIOLA                                            22 MAY 2024

COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE                                                                BRETT J

Mr Moeakiola, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges: In the first case, aggravated assault on Shannon Duffy, being an accessory after the fact to murder, in particular, the murder of Jarrod Turner by Shannon Duffy and thirdly the summary offence of possessing a firearm in contravention of a firearms prohibition order. It is a summary offence but I am dealing with this matter pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code.

The second case is one count of persistent family violence committed against your former partner.

In respect of both cases, there are significant disputes in respect of the facts. I have heard evidence in relation to each. The evidence was taken in separate hearings. I intend to set out the factual basis of sentencing in relation to each case, and in the course of doing so, determine the disputed facts. I will then proceed to sentence in respect of all charges.

The aggravated assault and accessory after the fact to murder. The events relevant to each of these offences surround and are connected to the murder of Jarrod Turner by Shannon Duffy on the night of 13 and 14 April 2019. Duffy murdered Mr Turner in a remote location, beside the road between Richmond and Campania, by shooting him in the head with a 12 gauge shot gun. I will return to these events shortly.

Duffy had lived with your family for much of his childhood and you had developed a relatively close relationship. At the time of the relevant events, you were living in a building known as ‘the Shed” with your partner and another associate, Jason Gordon. Duffy did not live there, but spent a great deal of time there, associating with you and Gordon. He was also an associate of your brother, Joe and worked for him. It is a matter of record that at the time in question, you were carrying on business trafficking illicit drugs from the Shed. You have since pleaded guilty to the crime of trafficking and been sentenced in respect of this activity.

The aggravated assault on Duffy occurred on 31 March 2019. You discharged a firearm with the intention of shooting Duffy in the foot, but fortunately the firearm was not functioning properly and the projectile struck his boot without piercing it. It did, however, cause grazing and swelling to Duffy’s foot. You did this to punish him for setting fire to the house in which another of your associates resided. It was your belief that he had done this, and you also believed that others were blaming you for the fire. Shooting Duffy was clearly a form of violent discipline or retribution.

Duffy murdered Jarrod Turner two weeks later. He was supposedly a friend of Mr Turner but decided to kill him after hearing an allegation that he had sexually assaulted a female friend of Duffy. You became aware shortly before the murder that Duffy was upset with Mr Turner and he was telling you that he intended to shoot him. He had told you also that he intended to acquire a firearm to carry out the shooting. You told the police when questioned after the murder that he had asked you where he could get one, but you said you did not know. You deny that you were involved in supplying a firearm to Duffy, or that you were aware that he had come into possession of one prior to the murder. The prosecution does not assert differently and you have not been charged with any crime arising out of the events prior to the murder. However, your knowledge of Duffy’s intentions provides context and is relevant to your state of mind and reaction when you learned of the murder after he had committed it.

It is not suggested that you had anything to do with the murder or any knowledge of the circumstances in which it occurred other than what Duffy told you later. However, the objective seriousness of the murder is relevant to sentencing in respect of a person who is an accessory after the fact. I dealt with the circumstances of the murder in considerable detail when I sentenced Duffy on 13 November 2020, to life imprisonment with provision for parole after 18 years. For the purposes of your sentence, it is sufficient to observe that this was a pre-mediated, cold-blooded killing perpetrated on an unsuspecting victim. Duffy killed the deceased with a single gunshot to the right side of his head while he was urinating on the side of the road. He had lured Mr Turner to that location with an invitation to accompany him and his girlfriend, Jemma Rumley-Cantrell for a drive. The crime was committed in the early hours of the morning after the three of them had spent a number of hours together in friendly, social circumstances. The weapon was concealed by Duffy in the front seat of the car during the drive.  After the shooting, Duffy and Rumley-Cantrell drove away, leaving Mr Turner dead or dying on the side of the road. His body was found a couple of hours later by a member of the public who was driving by.

Your first learned of the murder after Duffy arrived at the Shed some time after 7 am. He had taken refuge in another location, but had unsuccessfully tried to call you a number of times. It is clear that he wanted to avoid detection by police, and he immediately turned to you to help him. I infer that he had no real plan or idea as to what to do, and he was relying on you to assist him. Eventually, he was able to contact Gordon, and through him gained access to the Shed.

You were asleep when Duffy woke you and told you that he had shot and killed the deceased. You told him he should not be at the Shed because police would be looking for him and that he should go to his brother’s house, which he did. You remained in telephone contact with him while he was there. Later that morning, you and Gordon picked up Duffy and Rumley-Cantrell from the house and returned with them to the Shed. You then decided to visit your aunt, Judy Kemp, at her residence at Snug. The purpose of that visit and what was discussed with Ms Kemp during the visit is the subject of dispute. In particular, the prosecution claims that your purpose in going there was to obtain her assistance and advice in respect of the disposal of property which was in Duffy’s possession during the murder and which, if located by police, would be likely to implicate him in the crime. This included the firearm and his shoes. It is asserted that you discussed the destruction and disposal of the firearm, and the disposal of the shoes, in her presence during that visit. It is also asserted that there was a discussion between you, Gordon and Duffy in Ms Kemp’s presence that related to whether or not Ms Rumley-Cantrell should be killed because she was a witness to the crime. The prosecution asserts further that after this visit to Ms Kemp, you, Gordon and Duffy obtained a grinder and then drove to Margate, where that tool was used to cut up the firearm and the parts were then discarded at various locations along the waterfront. It is asserted that you and Duffy performed those tasks, while Gordon, who was the driver, stayed with the car.

Much of this is disputed by you. You agree that you went with Gordon and Duffy to Ms Kemp’s house where you spoke to her about the murder, but you claim that your purpose in doing so was simply to get her advice about what to do.  You did so because you knew that she had been in the same situation before with another relative. You deny that there was any discussion about killing Ms Rumley-Cantrell or that you ever saw or had anything to do with the firearm. You claim that you certainly did not have anything to do with its destruction or disposal, and it was not in the car when you drove to Ms Kemp’s house that morning.

These disputes were the subject of evidence. The facts asserted by the prosecution and disputed by you would, if true, aggravate the seriousness of the crime and your culpability for it. Accordingly, I should only take those facts into account in the assessment of sentence if I am satisfied of their existence beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution called both Mr Gordon and Ms Kemp to give evidence about these events. Each of them claimed to have no recollection at all about any of the events in question. Mr Gordon at one point simply decided that he would not answer the prosecutor’s questions. Ms Kemp denied that you and the other men had ever come to her house together, or that she had discussed the murder at any other time with you. The prosecution were permitted to cross-examine and subsequently prove prior representations by these witnesses which assert their involvement in the relevant events. At the very least, these prior representations impugn the credibility of the evidence of each witness. In any event, it was obvious to me that each was lying about their lack of recollection, and was being deliberately uncooperative when giving evidence. The prior statements make clear that I cannot rely on the evidence either gave in court concerning their lack of recollection.

In relation to Mr Gordon, the prior representation consisted of representations made to me by his counsel during sentencing proceedings relating to his sentence for the charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder. In essence, that crime related to his involvement in these events, and included the visit by you, him, Duffy and another person to Ms Kemp’s residence, and the subsequent disposal of the firearm. He originally disputed some of these facts but in the end accepted that he had been involved in driving the vehicle while the firearm was disposed of, albeit out of his sight, by you and Duffy. I am required to warn myself about the unreliable nature of hearsay evidence and also the unreliability that can exist when the evidence is being given by someone who is criminally concerned in the relevant events, as Gordon was. In particular, I need to take care about the facts which were eventually accepted by Gordon for the purpose of his sentencing, because in his evidence to me in this case, he said that he accepted those facts and did not continue the dispute because he wanted to get the case over and done with. Those facts were established against him for the purpose of his sentence, but I need to take care as to the extent to which I attribute objective truth to those facts in order to assess the disputes raised by you in this case. However, there are some representations made by Mr Gordon’s counsel in his sentencing submissions which, in my view, constitute reliable proof of the asserted facts. On 27 September 2021, when his counsel, Mr Rainbird, known to this Court as an experienced criminal practitioner, was outlining the prosecution allegations disputed by Gordon, he said this:

“My instructions there are, after Snug he then drove them both back to the shed.  He then admits driving them away.  He was asked to pull over on the side of the road, as requested by Duffy.  Duffy left the vehicle with a backpack.  A little while later, Mr Gordon heard a grinder going.  Duffy came back and then told Mr Gordon – he asked Mr Gordon to drive down to the water so he could get rid of the gun bit by bit.  He didn’t want to throw it all in the same spot.  Mr Gordon drove, as requested, and stopped the vehicle when he was asked to, and Mr Duffy kept getting out of the vehicle, and a few moments later he would come back. He stopped the vehicle at least five to six times to let Mr Duffy get out and that was his role in assisting in the disposition of the broken-up firearm.”

This statement is important because firstly Mr Rainbird made it clear that he was reflecting his instructions and, secondly, the concessions made by him were during his initial submissions, when he was outlining what of the prosecution facts was accepted and what was in dispute. It is clear that the occurrence of a car journey during which Duffy destroyed the firearm with a grinder and then disposed of the parts in the water was not disputed, and indeed confirmed, by Gordon. These were clearly statements against interest and matters which aggravated the seriousness of the charge which he faced. All of this supports the reliability of those representations, and I accept them as such. This evidence supports the prosecution’s assertion in the case against you concerning the disposal of the firearm. Mr Rainbird’s submission does not expressly state that you were directly involved in cutting up and throwing away the firearm, but when regard is had to the context of the allegations made by the prosecution against Mr Gordon and other evidence which I will discuss shortly, it supports a conclusion that you were involved in planning the disposal of the firearm, and were at the very least, in the car with Gordon when it was actually disposed of by Duffy.

In relation to Ms Kemp, the prosecution proved prior statements made by her to police which culminated in the statutory declaration made on 1 October 2019. These statements confirm that you, Gordon and Duffy did drive to her house at Snug during the morning after the murder, that you discussed with her getting rid of the firearm and that she jokingly told you to “just chuck it in the dam”. This was a reference to a dam on her property. However, she never saw the firearm, and although police subsequently found a firearm in the dam, it was not the one used by Duffy to commit the murder. The statements also confirm that there was a discussion in which you were involved, about whether Rumley-Cantrell should be killed, that Ms Kemp gave money to you at your request, and that she retained Duffy shoes. Again, it was asserted that I should exercise caution in relation to the reliability of these statements because of their hearsay nature and also because the statutory declaration was made after Ms Kemp had approached police seeking an agreement in respect of other unrelated charges against her. However, I am satisfied that the representations to which I have referred are true and reliable. According to the detective involved in the case, Ms Kemp did subsequently hand over Duffy’s shoes to police. The point was made by your counsel that in her statement Ms Kemp says that she was “aware police found shoes” when she had in fact given the shoes to the police, but I do not think this is a significant inconsistency. The important point is that she had the shoes and that is strong corroboration of at least that aspect of her version of this conversation. She also says that she passed you driving a different vehicle, your blue Falcon, later that afternoon in a location at Margate. There is other evidence that you left the shed a second time that day, and were in that vehicle during the afternoon. In particular, video surveillance footage which was obtained by police during their investigation of the drug trafficking charges against you, confirms that you left the shed in a white Lancer at 10:22 am and returned shortly after midday. There is independent evidence that you made a telephone call at 10:33 am, which lasted for 14 seconds. This is consistent with you calling Ms Kemp to arrange to come to her property. The surveillance footage confirms that the blue Ford Falcon, with you, Gordon and Duffy in it, returned to the shed at 4:11 pm that day. This evidence is consistent with Ms Kemp’s statement about seeing you in that vehicle at Margate between 3:45 and 4 pm, and with the prosecution’s assertion that you and the others left the shed a second time that day, for the purpose of disposing of the firearm.

You gave evidence in the disputed facts hearing in which you denied knowledge of the firearm or involvement in its disposal. However, I did not find you to be an impressive witness. Further, and in any event, you had no real explanation for the video surveillance evidence. When confronted with the video surveillance evidence of the second journey, in particular your return in the blue Falcon at 4.11 pm, your only response was to deny recollection of that journey.  I think that your evidence that you did not ask Duffy about the firearm or its location after he told you that he had shot and killed someone, when you were clearly willing to go to considerable lengths to help him avoid arrest and ultimately liability for the murder is completely fanciful and frankly unbelievable. I simply cannot accept this. Mr Richardson makes the point that I can infer that the surveillance footage of the shed would have been running for the entire period over which the relevant events took place, but the prosecution have not been able to present evidence showing anyone getting in or out of the relevant vehicles with a firearm or a grinder. I accept there is no such footage. However, this does not mean that the firearm did not end up in one of the vehicles, or was not left in another location and collected by you before its destruction.

In my view, when the video surveillance footage is considered together with the prior representations of Gordon and Kemp, the only rational conclusion is that you knew about and were involved in the disposal of the firearm. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you took part in planning its destruction and disposal, and were present when that took place in the manner asserted by the prosecution. However, although I am satisfied that you were in the car with Gordon while Duffy physically disposed of the firearm in the manner asserted, I am not able to find beyond reasonable doubt that you were directly involved in that process. I will proceed on the basis that you and Gordon stayed in the car while Duffy, with your knowledge and agreement, destroyed and disposed of the firearm.

I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the discussion outlined by Ms Kemp concerning the possibility of killing Rumley-Cantrell took place, and that you were part of that discussion, but I also find that there is no evidence to suggest that this idea went beyond this initial conversation. I accept that Ms Kemp effectively put an end to any such plan, simply by stating firmly that it would not be happening. I am satisfied that she provided money to you, that you arranged for someone else to buy new shoes for Duffy and that the shoes he was wearing at the time of the murder were left with her in the expectation that she would dispose of them. Of course, while she kept the shoes, she did not dispose of them as planned, because she wanted to use them to facilitate her proposal for a deal with the police in relation to her own charges.

It is accepted by you that later that same day, you arranged for a relative to drive to Hobart from Fingal to collect Duffy and Rumley-Cantrell and take them back to his house in Fingal. This was done so that they could hide from police. They remained there for approximately five days before their arrest on 19 April. On 15 April, you and Gordon drove to Fingal and provided Duffy with money and food. On 17 April, while Duffy was hiding at Fingal, you were arrested and held in custody overnight. You refused to engage in an interview but told police, falsely, that you had no knowledge of the murder. Your explanation for lying to the police is self-protection rather than to assist Duffy. However, I have no doubt that you were motivated by both considerations. In any event, even if you were ultimately concerned about your own potential criminal liability, your method of protecting yourself at that point necessarily involved taking steps in order to enable Duffy to escape punishment, and these steps including lying to police and failing to disclose Duffy’s whereabouts. Ultimately as a direct result of the assistance provided by you, Duffy successfully hid from police until 19 April, 5 days after the murder.

I regard both crimes and the offence to which you have pleaded are serious examples of their type. The aggravated assault was carried out with a firearm, with the intention of actually shooting Duffy. You committed this crime as a means of seeking retribution for a grievance and/or administering a brutal form of punishment. It was serious violence and deserves condemnation. It was also argued by the prosecution that I should regard a consequence of this crime as emboldening Duffy to settle grievances in a similar way, that is with violence and the use of a weapon. The clear point of this was that as a result, you should share some moral culpability for the murder. I reject this submission, Duffy must take responsibility for his own actions. You were charged with the murder but that charge was not proceeded with, and replaced with a charge of being an accessory after the fact. I make no finding concerning any linkage between the aggravated assault and Duffy’s decision to murder Mr Turner. However, in a more general sense, the use of violence of this type has no place in our community and has a tendency to cause fear and apprehension among law-abiding members of the community. In this sense, the violence used and the reasons for it are entirely relevant not only to the objective seriousness of the crime but also to your moral culpability for it.

The crime of accessory after the fact constituted the provision of assistance to Duffy for the purpose of enabling him to escape punishment for a shocking, premeditated murder. You provided Duffy with solace, comfort and practical assistance. He clearly and accurately predicted that you would be willing to help him if he turned to you. He saw you as someone with the contacts and resources necessary to assist him to evade responsibility for his actions. From the start and without any real hesitation, you took on that role. There is no doubt that you knew exactly how serious this was, but there is no suggestion that at any stage you contemplated taking a different course.

Your actions jeopardised the investigation of the murder and in actual fact, delayed Duffy’s apprehension for several days. The destruction and the disposal of the firearm and other critical evidence was for the specific purpose of shielding Duffy from punishment for the killing of Mr Turner. It had real capacity to affect the prosecution of Duffy for the murder and, therefore, the question of whether he received appropriate punishment for that crime. Of course, this was precisely what you were trying to achieve. Further, as I said to Gordon when I sentenced him for the same crime, your actions had a significant and foreseeable impact on Mr Turner’s family as well as the wider community. The devastating impact of Mr Turner’s violent death on those who loved him could only be exacerbated by any delay in the apprehension of his killer. Further, the fact that the murder was committed in such a violent way and in a public place meant that any such delay was capable of causing significant fear and apprehension in the wider community. All of these matters aggravate the seriousness of this crime.

I will deal now with the persistent family violence matter before I return to announce my sentencing orders. You have also pleaded guilty to one count of committing persistent family violence against your former partner. The crime is alleged to have been committed between 1 January 2017 and 12 June 2019, which is coincident with the entire period of your relationship. You were arrested and remanded in custody on 12 June 2019, and you have remained in custody since then.

Your plea of guilty, of course, constitutes an admission that you have committed an unlawful family violence act against the complainant on at least three occasions during that period. In actual fact, the prosecution has alleged that you engaged in serious violence against the complainant regularly throughout the relationship and has particularised 25 separate occasions upon which it is alleged that you committed unlawful family violence acts against her. The prosecution asserts that the violence was not limited to these acts, and that they were committed as part of a comprehensive and ongoing pattern of violent and intimidating conduct towards the complainant, which was associated with your attempt to coercively control her. It is alleged that on a number of occasions, she suffered serious injury as a result of physical assaults perpetrated by you. It is also alleged that the physical violence included raping her on at least three separate occasions.

You admit that you did unlawfully assault the complainant on three of the particularised occasions, but otherwise you dispute the prosecution allegations, both in terms of the specific occasions relied upon to sustain the charge and the allegation of a persistent pattern of similar behaviour. In order to resolve this significant dispute, I heard evidence presented by the prosecution, which included the oral testimony of the complainant together with statements made by her to police, I received a number of exhibits which include photographs taken by the complainant of injuries which she alleges were caused by you, recordings of conversations, the downloaded contents of your telephone including several text messages between the complainant and you and some medical evidence and records. I was also presented with an interview conducted with you by police in relation to these allegations. You declined to give or adduce evidence in the hearing.

It is common ground that all of the facts in dispute aggravate the seriousness of this crime and, accordingly, I cannot sentence you on the basis of those facts unless I am satisfied of them beyond reasonable doubt.  It is also clear that in order to find a disputed fact proved, I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant has given reliable and credible evidence about that fact. I also accept that I should carefully scrutinise the complainant’s evidence before acting upon it. This is because of the relevant standard of proof, and also that, although there is corroborative evidence available for some of the disputed facts, they all ultimately rely on my acceptance of the complainant’s evidence.

Your counsel has submitted that the complainant was neither credible nor reliable and that I should not act on her evidence unless it is substantially corroborated by other independent evidence. It was further submitted that I should doubt the complainant’s credibility because some of her admitted conduct throughout the relationship was inconsistent with her allegations against you. In particular, defence counsel relies on evidence that she challenged you from time to time. He also points to evidence that she secretly installed an app on your phone that recorded nearby sound, including conversations, without your knowledge. However, I do not regard these matters as inconsistent with the complainant’s evidence or her credibility. It is entirely consistent in my view, with the reality of a relationship such as this. Clearly, at least at the start, the complainant wanted to be in the relationship, and was capable of asserting her expectations. However, I am satisfied that there was a significant imbalance of power between you, and as time went on, she became more desperate in her efforts to assert herself and ultimately to protect herself.  The installation of the app is clearly consistent with this.  My general impression of the complainant’s evidence was that she was telling the truth. She was not shaken by cross-examination, made appropriate concessions and what she said had the ring of truth. In any event, much of her evidence is, in fact, supported by independent evidence. One of the concessions she made was to frankly concede that her recollection of specific detail had been adversely affected by a number of factors, including the effects of the injury she suffered, the fact that from time to time your assaults on her would cause her to lose consciousness and that there were so many acts of family violence that she found it difficult to identify the details and circumstances of any particular occasion. All of this is perfectly understandable, and does not reflect adversely on her credibility, but it is appropriate to exercise care in respect of the reliability of her recollections. I am satisfied that overall, she was doing her best to provide as much accurate detail as possible. Further, I will take into account that the legislative provision which creates this crime specifically provides that for the purpose of proving the unlawful family violence acts, it is not necessary to prove the dates on which or the exact circumstances in which any of the said acts were committed. This is consistent with the underlying purpose of this crime, which is to facilitate punishment of a course of unlawful and violent family violence. The law well understands that the effect of such a course of conduct will invariably make it difficult for a complainant to provide detail of the individual acts perpetrated as part of it. There is nothing unusual or inconsistent about this, in fact it is entirely consistent with the court’s experience of conduct of this nature.

In relation to your case, I make it clear that because the onus of proof of the disputed facts is on the prosecution, I cannot draw any inference from your failure to give evidence. However, your plea of guilty involves a formal admission of the ingredients necessary to establish your commission of the crime. I can, accordingly, proceed on the basis that it is a proven fact that you committed unlawful family violence acts against the complainant on at least three occasions during the period stated in the indictment. You have in fact admitted to three only. However, the converse does not apply to your dispute of the remaining facts through counsel. The existence of the dispute, of itself, does not provide any evidence at all in respect of the disputed matters. It simply notifies the court that there is such a dispute. The only piece of evidence in which you have stated your version of events is the record of your interview with police on 11 June 2020, when the relevant allegations were put to you. In that interview, you denied any wrongdoing, even in respect of matters which you have now admitted through your counsel. Ms Mason SC submitted that I should conclude that you have lied in relation to your denials of wrongdoing during that interview, and further that you have done so because you are conscious of your guilt in respect of these allegations. She says that I can therefore use these lies as an implied admission of all of the matters about which you were interviewed. I have no doubt that you lied when you denied the matters which are now admitted. These lies affect my assessment of your credibility in respect of that interview. I do not regard what you said in that interview as having any reliability. However, I am also of the view that I cannot go further and infer that you told these lies because you were conscious of your guilt in respect of the disputed facts. Such lies can be explained on the basis that you did not want to admit to the three acts which you have now admitted, because you knew that you had perpetrated them, and wanted to avoid punishment for them. They are equivocal in respect of the disputed allegations. Accordingly, because of my view about your reliability in the interview, I do not intend to place any weight on anything you have said in it, but equally I will not draw any inferences adverse to you in respect to the disputed facts. I will simply put aside the interview and determine this matter on the basis of the prosecution evidence, applying the appropriate standard of proof.

I will now consider each of the specific occasions relied upon by the prosecution.

Occasion 1. The first occasion is alleged to have taken place on 2 December 2017 when you and the complainant were living together in a bus at First Avenue, West Moonah. It is alleged that you were both in a car, an argument started and the complainant got out of the car to get away from you. You followed her and assaulted her by punching and kicking her a number of times, and forced her back into the vehicle. It is clear that the complainant went to the police station later that day and a police family violence order was made, although she told police that you had not done anything to her. When the complainant gave evidence about this incident, she seemed confused about the detail of the assault and it appeared to me may have been conflating the details with the circumstances of other assaults. However, it was clear to me that she recalled the incident because she remembers a member of the public in the vicinity and that she subsequently went to the police station. She had been told by you and your family to lie to police and agrees that she did so, so that you would not get into trouble. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you did assault her on this occasion and that she did suffer some injury in the nature of bruising and other superficial grazing. I am satisfied that the assault was constituted by punches and kicks, but I cannot be more precise about the nature of the assault, its severity or the circumstances surrounding it.

Occasion 2. This incident occurred between December 2017 and May 2018. Again, you were arguing while travelling together in a car. You told the complainant to get out of the car, which she did. While she was walking on the side of the road, you drove the car at her hitting her and causing her to tumble over the bonnet and fall on the side of the road. The vehicle was travelling at approximately 40 km/h when it hit her. I accept her evidence about this incident. I was satisfied from her evidence that she has a recall of this incident and was giving a truthful account of her recollection. She convincingly maintained her version in cross-examination.

Occasion 3. The allegation is that during an argument on 11 May 2018, you pushed the complainant with force using both hands, causing her to fall to the ground. It is alleged that the fall caused injury to her arm, in particular swelling around her left shoulder and the aggravation of other injuries. The complainant went to the Royal Hobart Hospital emergency department. The hospital records and the evidence of Dr Dewing confirmed that the complainant had suffered a tear of the ligament associated with the acromioclavicular joint of her left shoulder and that this was consistent with falling in the way that she has described. She was treated and required to wear a sling for a number of months. The medical records confirm that the complainant told the hospital authorities that she had suffered the injury when she was assaulted by an unidentified male friend. She did not identify you as the friend. In cross-examination by your counsel, it was put to the complainant that she had fallen as a result of the effect of drugs that she had taken and that she had not been assaulted by you. She accepted that she consumed cannabis and prescribed Valium from time to time but maintained her evidence concerning how this injury occurred. She said that she did not identify you to the hospital authorities because she did not want you to get into trouble. I accept her evidence about this incident. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you assaulted her as she described. I have no doubt that her decision not to implicate you was motivated by a combination of her feelings for you as well as fear as to your reaction if she did implicate you in the injury.

Occasion 4. This allegation is that in 2018 during an argument concerning an assault by your mother on the complainant, you threw a large glass bottle at her. The bottle hit her in the ribs, causing her sufficient pain for her to believe that she had suffered broken ribs. You deny this incident but once again the complainant gave convincing evidence about it. She describes the bottle as an unopened large bottle of vodka with a distinctive skull-like shape and has produced an image of a similar bottle. I accept her evidence about this assault.

Occasion 5. It is alleged that a few days after the last incident, again during an argument, you threw a full-size fire extinguisher at the complainant from a distance of approximately 2 m. The extinguisher hit the complainant’s arm, which she had raised to protect her head. The blow caused significant pain. Your counsel, when indicating the extent of the dispute, told me that these allegations were admitted but it was clear from his cross-examination of you that they are not. However, the complainant attended the hospital about a week later. An injury consistent with the allegation was observed by hospital staff. The complainant attempted to provide another explanation for the injury, but after questioning by the staff, the complainant told them that her partner had thrown the fire extinguisher at her. A photo of the scar on her arm consistent with the injury described by her was placed in evidence. All of this evidence provides support for the complainant’s version. I accept the truth of her evidence to me and am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you perpetrated this act.

Occasions 6 and 7. The allegation is that between 16 May and 25 June 2018, you assaulted the complainant during an argument by pushing her to the ground and kicking her in the back. As she was crawling on the ground towards the door to escape from you, you stomped on her back and side causing some ribs to break. She suffered significant pain and was bedridden and in pain for weeks following the incident. It is further alleged that about 20 to 30 minutes after this assault, you had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent. All of this is disputed by you. In evidence, the complainant said that this was a particularly bad assault, which she described as being in the “top five”. She described how you jumped on her back. I accept the truth of the complainant’s evidence and am satisfied that you did assault her as she described. There is no independent evidence to confirm that she suffered broken ribs but I am satisfied that the injury caused sufficient pain to convince her that she had suffered such an injury. In relation to the sexual intercourse, the complainant said that this was one of a couple of times when you had sex with her after assaulting her. She said that the sexual act on this occasion was painful, and when asked to describe that pain, she said “Well, my ribs had just been broken. I’d been hit, punched, hair pulled, but mainly my ribs were hurting the most”. When it was put to her by your counsel in cross-examination that she only ever had sex with you when she was showing you that she wanted to do so, she said “definitely not” in respect of the couple of specific occasions when you had sex with her after an assault, which included this one. It is alleged by the prosecution that this act of sexual intercourse amounted to rape, but you dispute this, claiming that sex may well have taken place, but it was consensual. Under the Criminal Code, consent means free agreement. I am of the view that the complainant’s engagement in the act of sexual intercourse on this occasion did not take place with her free agreement. I have no doubt that she was very upset, in pain and injured as a result of the force you had just applied to her, when you engaged in sexual intercourse with her. She would have been in fear of you and intimidated by you. Further, I am of the view that whether or not you thought that she agreed to have sex with you, any belief that you formed in that regard was not a reasonable belief. A moment’s reflection would have made it clear to you that she was in no state to freely agree to have sex with you. The complainant in her evidence was at a loss to explain why you did this. She does not allege that, apart from these allegations, sexual assault was part of the pattern of ongoing abuse perpetrated by you. She suggested that it may have been some form of misguided apology. I am not in a position to determine your state of mind at that time, but even taking into account the generous view suggested by the complainant, the fact remains that you were compounding her misery and asserting your physical dominance over her by insisting on having sex with her in those circumstances. Your conduct amounts to the crime of rape. I regard this as a very serious aspect of the overall family violence for which you are responsible.

Occasion 8. The assault to which this incident relates occurred on 25 June 2018. The allegation is that as punishment for her failure to remove a photograph from her phone which contained the image of a male, you administered a brutal bashing to the complainant. The alleged violence rendered her unconscious, and she accordingly has no independent recollection of the assault. You have denied the allegation. However, the prosecution relies upon admissions by you to the complainant and a significant amount of circumstantial evidence to prove the allegation. The starting point is the complainant’s recollection of the circumstances preceding the alleged assault. She recalls that you and she were reviewing some social media posts on her phone. One of these included a photograph or video which showed the complainant sitting in a vehicle with a male friend of her father. You had previously instructed her that she was not allowed to have images of other men on her phone. She became concerned when you reacted to seeing the photo by instructing a male friend who was also present to leave the room. She has no further recollection of the events which followed this. However, the following day, you admitted to her that you had punched and kicked her, had smashed her head on the corner of something and after she became unconscious, you had kicked her several times in the vagina. The male who had been in the room, but had left and waited outside it when instructed to do so by you, told the complainant that he could hear her screams and that “it was the most excruciating sound he has ever heard”. There is independent evidence that establishes that the male friend, and another man, who was undoubtedly you, called for an ambulance through 000. I have heard a recording of the 000 call and it is obvious that the male who makes the call is concerned about the complainant’s state. The complainant told the ambulance officers that she had fallen and hit her head when she was walking into her unit. A nurse who treated her in hospital the following day reported that she gave a different version of the injury, namely that she slipped in the shower but she then corrected her account and said she could not recall what happened. She denied that there had been an assault or abuse by you. Further evidence includes photographs taken by the complainant of bruising to the area of her vagina, consistent with your admission to her about kicking her in that area.

Taking all of the evidence into account, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you brutally assaulted the complainant to the point of unconsciousness, in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The assault continued after she was unconscious and included kicking her with force to the genital area. You did this because you were angered by her perceived breach of your rule that she was not to have photographs of males on her phone. This incident is concerning because of its inherent brutality and cruelty. It is also concerning because it is a clear example of a very high degree of coercive control, which underpinned your approach to the relationship with the complainant.

Occasion 9. The complainant alleges that it was common for you to punch or kick her during an argument. This included sometimes punching her in the stomach. She said in evidence that there are a number of occasions where she saw blood in her urine, and this was always associated with an assault by you. This occasion is an example of these allegations. It relates to a visit by her to the hospital on 6 July 2018. The hospital records confirm her attendance, but also indicate that she decided against consulting a healthcare professional. In evidence, she did not have a clear recollection of the specific occasion but confirmed that every occasion when she found blood in her urine was after an assault by you. I accept her evidence about the general pattern of such assaults and the causation of that injury. Although the evidence around this occasion is vague, I am satisfied that there was some form of assault associated with her visit to the hospital. However, I cannot be any more precise than this.

Occasion 10. The allegation in respect of this occasion is that on 19 December 2018, you assaulted the complainant by pushing her head into a bench, causing her to lose consciousness. The complainant arranged for her father to take her to hospital on the following day. She said in evidence that she was particularly concerned about the head injury on this occasion, because her mother had died from an aneurysm. Once again, the hospital records confirm her attendance there, but also that she would not say what had actually happened. She explained in evidence that this was because she did not want to get you into trouble. Your counsel put to the complainant that she went to hospital because she injured herself in a fall that occurred because of drug taking. She rejected this, and I accept her evidence about this occasion.  I am satisfied that you assaulted her on this occasion as she described.

Occasions 11 and 12. These allegations relate to events which occurred on 10 March 2019. The complainant was on the floor of the shed with a friend making a sign. You became angry because the complainant had said she wanted to leave the residence when her friend did. As you were walking past her, you kicked her in the face forcibly with your steel capped boots. She suffered a cut under her eye and significant bruising to her face, which included a black eye. The injuries, in particular the bleeding laceration and the black eye, are clearly visible in photographs taken by the complainant on her phone and which were admitted into evidence. A photograph of the sign in question was also placed into evidence. You deny this assault had occurred and your counsel, clearly confronted with the evidence of the injuries, suggested they had been caused by someone else and in other circumstances. The complainant rejected this and I also do not accept this proposition as a reasonable explanation for the injury. There is no evidence of the explanation suggested by your counsel, and as a hypothesis to explain the injuries, it lacks rationality and credibility. I am satisfied that you kicked her in the face as she described. In any event, in a telephone conversation with your brother on 22 March 2019, which was recorded by police for unrelated reasons, you clearly admit giving the complainant “a black eye that night”. The context of the conversation in which the admission is made is consistent with a reference to this assault.

The complainant says that after the assault, you had sex with her, notwithstanding that she was bleeding from the cut to her face and experiencing considerable pain. However, in cross- examination, she accepted that the sexual intercourse may not have been on the same day as the assault but said there were at least two occasions when sex occurred soon after an assault. I have already described and accepted one of these occasions, and there is at least one later occasion alleged by her and accepted by me. Having regard to this concession by the complainant, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on this occasion, sexual intercourse occurred immediately after the assault. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied that sexual intercourse which may have occurred in following days took place without the consent of the complainant.

Occasion 13. The complainant’s evidence is that the effect of the injury sustained from the kick in the face which is the subject of occasion 11, including the black eye, persisted for some weeks. She left the shed and took refuge with others, but did not go near her father because she did not want him to see the black eye. The prosecution allege that you were angry that she would not return to live with you and you engaged in a variety of threatening and intimidating acts intended to put pressure on her to do so. These included having associates attempt to persuade her to return and, on one occasion, having an associate discharge a firearm at the house of a male friend, with whom she was staying. Ultimately, you sent the complainant a photograph of her mother’s grave. The complainant says it was not unusual for you to threaten her by threatening to hurt her family, including by assaulting her father, damaging her mother’s grave or burning or otherwise damaging her stepmother’s business premises. Eventually, the complainant gave in and returned to the shed. When she did, it is alleged that you took her out the back and pretended to be friendly with her. However, you then locked the door back into the shed, and said to her “that was a silly move”, presumably referring to her decision to leave you. You then threw her to the ground and kicked her to the body. This included several kicks in the back, which you administered despite her pleas for you to stop. You told her that this was retribution for her associating “with bikies”, a reference to the man in whose house she had sought refuge. You threatened to kill her. Eventually, you picked her from up from the ground and held her in the air by the hair. You then used a small knife to roughly cut chunks from her hair. You told her you that you were going to make her bald so that bikies would not want her. You then pushed the knife against her neck and said “Do you want me to do it.” You then cut her neck causing it to bleed. The complainant said that she feared for her life. Although all of this is disputed by you, there is considerable evidence supporting the complainant’s version. She took photographs of the cut hair and these are in evidence. Text messages downloaded from your phone contain a conversation between you and the complainant, conducted about a month later. In this conversation, you threaten to assault the complainant, to assault her father and to damage and destroy his property and her stepmother’s shop. You also threatened to shoot the complainant and take the rest of her hair. In a telephone conversation with your brother conducted a few days after the relevant events, on 22 March 2019, which was recorded by police for other reasons, you discuss your concern about the complainant’s association with bikies, refer to shooting up the bikie’s house when the complainant took off and admit that you gave the complainant “a black eye that night”. In the conversation, you explain and appear to attempt to justify your conduct on the basis of the complainant’s unwillingness to comply with your requirements of her. Your alleged conduct, and the tone and content of your conversation, both in the text messages and when speaking to your brother, is consistent with the wider pattern of coercive control which can be seen in other occasions of unlawful family violence which have been proved to my satisfaction. Having regard to all of this evidence, and my general view of the complainant’s credibility, I am satisfied that the complainant has accurately described your conduct on this occasion, and I find accordingly.

Occasion 14. The unlawful family violence act alleged on this occasion is admitted by you. The evidence for it arises from an admission made by you in the conversation with your brother on 22 March 2019. You tell him that you have “just knocked my Mrs out”. You make it clear that you did this because of your frustration with her association with bikies and as retaliation for what you had been told was some intimate communication between her and one of these men. You told your brother that you “just went in there and knocked [the complainant] out. I tried to speak to her and she wouldn’t speak to me so I knocked her out”. You freely discuss other possibilities for punishment and/or retribution against her, including killing her or arranging for her to be abducted and held against her will, and possibly subjected to rape and sexual attack. The content of this conversation and the cold blooded way in which you describe administering serious violence to the complainant is chilling and extremely concerning. It demonstrates your claim to complete dominion over the complainant and your self-righteous and arrogant claim to entitlement to perpetrate violence as a means of enforcing your authority.

Occasion 15. It is alleged that three days after this conversation, on 25 March 2019, you again punched the complainant, knocking her unconscious. The complainant had placed a recording application on your phone because she believed you were being unfaithful to her. You attacked her when you found out about this. Although you deny this attack, its immediate aftermath is captured on the recording equipment and this recording has been played to me. Members of your family were present at the time. Of significance is a conversation between your sister and you in which you make numerous statements consistent with having perpetrated the assault and explain your reasons for doing so. You can then be heard addressing the apparently unconscious complainant. You make it very clear that you attacked her because she had recorded you and you say that if she does not stop doing so, you will do worse to her. You attempt to justify the fact that you “kicked the shit out of” her. You tell her that “that’s why you’re on the fucking floor. You don’t record people”. You continue to blame her for the violence that you have perpetrated against her and threaten her with further violence. You then tell your sister that as the next step, you will burn the complainant’s face, that you will “pay Duffy to burn her dad’s house down” and suggest that you will “let all my mates fuck her”. You also threatened to burn her stepmother’s shop down. Although the complainant agreed in cross-examination that she may have pretended to have been unconscious on this occasion in order to protect herself from further attack, a comment from you on the recording demonstrates that you at least believe that you have actually knocked her unconscious.  When she eventually comes to, there is a lengthy diatribe from you in which you demand that she unlock her phone and threaten to put it in the fire and burn it if she does not do so. Eventually, you carry through on this threat and place the phone in the fire, to the complainant’s obvious distress.

The recorded conversation makes it crystal clear that you have perpetrated the violence alleged against you on this occasion, for the reasons and in the circumstances described by your own statements in the recorded conversation. Again, this occasion is consistent with the ongoing pattern of cruel and unrestrained violence and coercive control already described by me.

Occasion 16. The allegation in respect of this occasion is that the day after the events relevant to the last occasion, you and the complainant were arguing while in a car being driven by Mr Gordon. The argument was recorded without your knowledge by the app that the complainant had placed on your phone. You can be heard demanding that the complainant give you money, purportedly for the purpose of contributing to household expenses. It is obvious that you become angrier and more agitated as the conversation progresses, and you threaten a number of times to assault the complainant. The prosecution alleges that at one point you tell the complainant to get out of the car, and when she does not do so, you pull her from the car and then drag her by the legs across cement. You can be heard on the recording telling the complainant to get out and calling her a “fucking dog”. It is probable that the complainant did not get back into the vehicle because there is no further involvement by her in subsequent conversation. In evidence-in-chief and in cross-examination, the complainant said that during an argument around this time, she tried to escape from a vehicle against your wishes but you chased her down and dragged her back to the vehicle by her feet. I have no doubt that that occurred but suspect that she is confused and has conflated two separate occasions. As I have already discussed, an inability to recall the details of each occasion of family violence, does not detract from the capacity of the court to find that an ongoing course of conduct constituting persistent family violence has taken place. I am satisfied that you treated her in a demeaning and abusive way on both occasions and that on either this occasion or another occasion you have acted as she described in evidence, that is dragged her by the feet on the ground in order to force her back into a vehicle.

Occasion 17. The allegation on this occasion is that on 8 April 2019, after you had sent numerous messages to the complainant abusing and threatening her, she met you in the car park of a hotel. When she approached you, you assaulted her by pushing her head into a parked car, knocking her unconscious. You then put her in the car and took her back to the shed. The message exchange is proven by material downloaded from your phone, and includes the one that I have already referred to in which you threatened to shoot her and take the rest of her hair. In evidence, the complainant again had difficulty recalling the detail of this incident, but was certain that she had been assaulted in this way. I accept her evidence about this and find that you committed this act.

Occasion 18. This occasion is admitted by you. It occurred on 13 April 2019, which is the day before Duffy shot and killed Mr Turner. During an interview with police, the complainant said that you had beaten her on that day. Text messages from you to her demonstrate that you were demanding that she return to the shed. Again, it is clear from the tone and content of the messages that you were agitated and you made numerous threats to assault her and damage her father’s property. In a recorded telephone conversation between you and your brother, you admitted assaulting the complainant including that you punched her in the head and that you “kicked the fuck out of” her. You tell him that she is “fucked up”. You also discuss with him other action that you are contemplating including shooting her. However, it is not suggested that you actually did or attempted to do so. This is yet another example of your use of violence to control the complainant, and to punish her for not complying with your wishes or resisting you.

Occasion 19 and 20. The assault relevant to this occasion is alleged to have occurred on 11 May 2019. Again, most of the relevant events are captured on a recording. Notwithstanding this, you have denied some of what is alleged against you in respect of the violence. It is obvious from the recording that you lost your temper when you perceived that the complainant had picked up your mobile telephone in order to give it to you. Apparently, touching your telephone was against the rules which you had set for her. It is alleged that during this incident, you have punched and/or kicked the complainant to the eye with force and then thrown a glass at her which has smashed causing some glass fragments to enter her eye. Although you deny this violence, the recording captures your threats to bash her and it is clear that during the course of the incident items are thrown and broken glass ends up on the floor as a result. In fact, you can be heard complaining about cutting your foot on this glass, and angrily demanding that the complainant clean up the broken glass. As the recording continues, the complainant can be heard crying and your anger and threats of violence escalate. It seems that you have punched the complainant at least once more, and have threatened to kill her. You can be heard telling your sister that you have just smashed the whole place up. In a subsequent recorded conversation with your brother, you admit punching the complainant during this incident. The complainant alleges that as a result of your violence during this incident, she suffered excruciating pain in her eye and could not see for a period of time. She also suffered a broken little finger in the incident.  You did not want her to go to the doctor, but you subsequently googled the eye injury, obviously because you were concerned about the seriousness of her injury. All of this evidence provides cogent support for the complainant’s allegations. I have no doubt that you did exactly what has been described by her.

Shortly after this incident you had sexual intercourse with the complainant. Again, she went along with the sex because she was intimidated by you and it was easier just to do so. In her evidence, the complainant was steadfast and sure about this act taking place soon after the violence. She recalls complaining of glass in her eye and still bleeding and in pain when you commenced sexual intercourse with her. It is improbable that she would be confused about this. She again conceded that you may have had sex with her as an attempt to apologise for your behaviour. On any reasonable basis, initiating sexual intercourse in those circumstances could not possibly have achieved that outcome, and in any event it must have been obvious to you that she was in no position to agree to have sex or participate consensually in the act. Despite her generous concession, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she did not freely agree to participate in sexual intercourse with you on this occasion, and that your conduct constituted family violence and compounded the impact on her of the earlier violence.

Occasion 21. This occasion occurred on 22 May 2019. It is admitted by you and evidenced by a recorded conversation between your sister and another person. On this occasion, you smashed the complainant across her back with a vacuum cleaner. In the conversation, your sister suggests that the blow was hard enough to cause a dent in the vacuum.

Occasion 22. The allegation in respect of this occasion is that during an argument in the bedroom, you struck the complainant in the head. It started when she wanted to leave the premises but you would not let her. You told her to come with you to sell drugs but she did not want to. The occasion is yet another example of you acting on your unrestrained anger by berating the complainant with threats of violence and abusive and demeaning language. Much of this is captured on a recording that was played to the Court. The complainant told police that she thought her jaw was broken as a result of your attack. In evidence, she had difficulty recalling the incident. It is understandable that she would have such a difficulty, having regard to the large number of such incidents and the violence perpetrated by you towards her during them. I note again that the law recognises the impact of a course of violent conduct of this nature and that is precisely why it does not require proof of the exact circumstances in which an unlawful family violence act is committed. I have no doubt that on either this occasion or at an occasion similar to it you assaulted her. I have no doubt that on this specific incident or one very similar, and while berating and threatening the complainant in the manner evidenced in the recording, you punched the complainant in the head, causing such pain that she believed that she had suffered a broken jaw.

Occasion 23. This unlawful family violence act is admitted by you. It occurred on 1 June 2019. It involved you throwing a shovel at the complainant. Fortunately, it missed her. Even without your admission, the incident would have been easily proved. It is captured on CCTV.

Occasion 24. It is alleged that your expectations of the complainant included performing certain domestic services for you. This included preparing and laying out your shaving equipment in the morning. On this occasion, it is alleged that when the complainant did not carry through with this requirement to your satisfaction, you pushed her face and head with force into the bathroom basin. There is little alleged in the way of particulars of the surrounding circumstances, it is simply said to be typical of firstly your requirement that she wait on you in certain ways and your anger and violent reaction when she did not meet your expectations in that regard. The complainant maintained her version of this incident in cross-examination. I believe her. The conduct she describes is entirely consistent with your demonstrated approach to the relationship. I am satisfied that she is telling the truth about this occasion.

Occasion 25. The allegation is that during an argument, you have burned the complainant’s face with a lit cigarette and then poured soft drink and potato chips over her. You deny this but again there is considerable evidence to support the complainant’s version. The evidence includes photographs of what is clearly a cigarette burn on her face and a recording of a conversation in which you threaten to burn her face. Again, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you have perpetrated these assaults.

You were arrested and remanded in custody on 12 June 2019. A family violence order was made protecting the complainant. In breach of this order, you constantly telephoned her from prison. The authorities have recorded a total of 129 such calls. At your insistence, the complainant described herself during the calls by a false name. She did this and continued to speak to you because she was scared of you and feared that you could follow through on threats notwithstanding that you were in prison, by having other people carry out the threats and also because she wanted to hear what you had to say. I will not go through the calls that were set out in some detail by the prosecution. They clearly answer the description of being abusive and manipulative, and contain numerous threats of violence against the complainant. They clearly demonstrate your continued assertion of dominion over her and the use of threatened violence to attempt to control her.

The violence by you has had a significant and permanent impact on the complainant. She has been diagnosed by an appropriately qualified specialist, assisted by a cognitive assessment by a psychologist, with multiple traumatic brain injury resulting from, in particular, your assaults on her head, including those which rendered her unconscious. There is also ongoing psychological trauma including post-traumatic stress disorder. The doctor believes that it is possible that she has sustained chronic traumatic encephalopathy because of the repeated concussions but this is not capable of diagnosis until after death. The brain injury has rendered her significantly disabled and the practical impact of this disability will mean that she will not be able to complete her studies to become a qualified hairdresser and is unlikely to be able to work again in the future. It will impact on her capacity to be an effective parent without support if she decides to have a child in the future. The injury makes other psychiatric complications more probable including depression, bipolar disorder and psychotic disorders. There is also likely to be ongoing psychological impact. Both the specialist and the psychologist consider that the complainant will need long-term, if not permanent, support and she has made an application to the NDIS to assist her in that regard. She currently lives with and has significant assistance from her father but continues to live with the worry that you will do something which will result in her father or others close to her being hurt. Given your threats throughout the relationship to harm her father and other members of her family and to harm her, and the actions taken by you against those you perceived as helping the complainant, her concern in this regard is perfectly understandable.

Further, the complainant provided me with an impact statement setting out her experience of the impact of your conduct on her in both the short and the long term. I found it all consistent with what one would expect from the perpetration of a significant crime such as this. It highlighted in particular the very significant breach of the trust which she was entitled to expect because of her commitment to the intimate relationship with you. This is a matter which significantly affects your moral culpability, as it does in all cases of serious family violence offending.

Your offending constitutes a particularly serious example of this crime. There are a number of aggravating features. The violence was cruel, brutal and frequent. Its unrestrained nature, and the fact that you often targeted the complainant’s head rendered it extremely dangerous. In actual fact, as I have discussed, you inflicted significant injury on numerous occasions, but the potential consequences could have been even worse. You did not always prevent her from seeking medical assistance, but you discouraged it and if she did she had to lie about how the injury had happened. The association of the violence with your rage and your obvious volatile emotional state meant that the complainant must have been kept in a constant state of anxiety and apprehension. This is consistent with her evidence and her ongoing fear of you, even after you were remanded in custody. You kept her isolated and prevented her from seeking help from her family. The seriousness of the crime is compounded by the systematic use of actual and threatened violence to control the complainant and keep her subservient to your wishes. You thought nothing of beating her to the point of unconsciousness, and then when she regained consciousness blaming her for your violence. Your treatment of her, including the sexual crimes, was degrading and demeaning. It was often committed in the presence of others, including children.  As I have already said, it is impossible for me to be clear on your motives for the sexual offending but having sex with her after you had brutally beaten her was arrogant and repugnant to any notion of true and mutual intimacy. I am satisfied that at best you recklessly disregarded her wishes and her capacity to consent to sexual intercourse on those occasions. Overall, your conduct was consistent with your view that the complainant was your possession, someone over whom you had complete control and dominion, and could treat as you wished. Family violence of any sort is rightly of concern to the community and will not be tolerated by the courts. However, when it reaches this level, and is perpetrated as part of an ongoing pattern of coercive and violent control, it deserves particular condemnation and punishment.

There is little if anything to be said on your behalf in mitigation. In my view, you have shown no remorse for or insight in respect of the seriousness of your conduct, or its impact on the complainant. This is obvious from your conversations with others, and your diatribes against the complainant as to how your cruel and violent treatment of her was somehow her fault. You did not voluntarily desist from this pattern of behaviour. It only stopped when you were taken into custody for other crimes and, in fact, you continued your threatening and manipulative control of the complainant after you were remanded in custody and despite the existence of a family violence order. Your plea of guilty carries little weight when considered in the context of your unfounded dispute of most of the allegations made against you by the prosecution, and the need for the complainant to give evidence and be subjected to cross-examination, in order to establish the extent of your criminal behaviour.

Turning to your personal circumstances, I note that you are now 34 years of age. You were aged between 29 and 30 when you committed the crimes which are the subject of these sentences. Your criminal record discloses that you first started offending when you were 15 years old, and you have been offending on a frequent and persistent basis since then. I am told that your home life before this was particularly difficult and that you were subjected to and exposed to violence in the home from a young age, particularly when you were living with your father. You served a number of periods of youth detention in Ashley, and were the victim of sexual crimes during that time. You have a relatively low intellectual capacity and you are illiterate although I understand that you are pursuing a course in learning to read while in prison. Your criminal record demonstrates a propensity to commit serious crime of varying types. You have been sentenced to imprisonment as an adult on a number of occasions. You do have convictions for offences of violence, but the violent offending in your record is relatively limited. In 2010, you were convicted of common assault, and in 2014 of numerous breaches of a police family violence order, which related to a former partner. There is another assault in that year, which I am told was an act of family violence against that woman.  It is a reasonable observation, however, that your record does not reflect a pre-existing propensity for violent offending as serious as that involved in the offending with which I am dealing. Having said that, the lengthy and continuous nature of your previous offending indicates a complete disregard and disrespect for the law and this attitude is well demonstrated by the crimes for which you are about to be sentenced.

I reiterate that I consider the persistent family violence to be a serious example of its type. I reiterate also that family violence in any form will not be tolerated, but at this level of seriousness, it deserves and will incur severe punishment. At your age, what happened to you as a child and a young person does not excuse or mitigate your conduct. On the contrary, it demonstrates why the courts and the community generally must reject family violence. The only possible response in your case is significant punishment in the form of a lengthy sentence of imprisonment.

It is appropriate that I impose separate sentences in respect of each set of crimes, that is the aggravated assault and accessory after the fact and the firearms offence on the one hand and the family violence crime on the other. As each involve completely separate offending, it is appropriate that the sentences be imposed on a cumulative basis. However, in assessing the length of each sentence, I need to have regard to the principles of totality. The issue of totality is relevant with respect to the aggregate sentence across all crimes. It also has relevance to assessment of the sentence for the persistent family violence because that crime encompasses multiple episodes of criminal conduct, which in this case has been committed against a backdrop of an ongoing course of conduct. Also relevant to the question of totality is the fact that you have or will in the very near future complete a sentence for the crime of trafficking in illicit drugs. This sentence was imposed by Geason J on 6 September 2021. When an activated suspended sentence is taken into account, you were sentenced by his Honour to imprisonment for a total period of 5 years and 8 weeks, commencing on 14 June 2019. On my calculation, there was an aggregate non-parole period, including the activated suspended sentence of 3 years and 8 months. Clearly, you have not been granted parole. I will assume that this is because you have also been on remand awaiting resolution of these matters. It is important to take into account, in this regard, that some, but not all of the delay has not been your fault. At least one year of it should be attributed to my own unavailability due to illness.

There are two aspects of the totality principle which are relevant to this case. Firstly, there is a need to avoid subjecting you to a crushing aggregate sentence not in keeping with your record and prospects. This is particularly pertinent because the other aspect of totality, which is the need to ensure that the overall sentence is proportionate to the total criminal conduct, will have a limited moderating effect in this case given that the various crimes all involve separate serious offending. As I have explained in other cases, the need to avoid a crushing sentence is a relative concept and must be balanced and judged against the gravity of the offending across all of the criminal conduct. In respect of your prospects, I regard your relatively young age as a particularly significant factor. I also take into account that the impact of a lengthy sentence increases exponentially as time goes by and after a certain point the capacity of further imprisonment to address the applicable sentencing aims, such as general and personal deterrence and denunciation, decreases accordingly.

I will give effect to totality and particularly the avoidance of an overall crushing sentence in a number of ways. Firstly, there will be some moderation exercised in the assessment of the head sentence in each case. Secondly, while each sentence will be served cumulatively, I will backdate the first sentence to commence on the date on which you would have become eligible for parole in respect of the sentence imposed for the crime of trafficking. Thirdly, I will permit eligibility for parole at the earliest time. This, of course, does not mandate your release from prison at that time but will give the Parole Board an opportunity to respond to any meaningful attempt by you to rehabilitate during your time in custody.

The sentencing orders are as follows:

• You are convicted of all crimes to which you have pleaded guilty
• For the crime of aggravated assault and the offence of possessing a firearm in contravention of a firearms prohibition order, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a global term of 1 year. That sentence will be backdated to commence on 15 February 2023. You are not eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence.
• For the crime of being an accessory after the fact to murder, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years, which will be served cumulatively upon sentence imposed for the aggravated You are not eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence.
• For the crime of persistent family violence, you are sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years, which will be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed for being an accessory after the fact to murder. You are not eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence.
• For the purposes of S 92A (3) of the Sentencing Act, I specify that:
  2023. The total term of imprisonment which you are liable to serve in respect of all of the above sentences is 18 years, commencing on 15 February 2023.
  2024. The total period that you must serve before you become eligible for parole is the aggregate of the non-parole periods relating to each sentence, which is a total period of nine years.
• Pursuant to s 13A of the Family Violence Act, I direct that the crime of persistent family violence be recorded on your criminal record as a family violence offence.
• I am required to make an order under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, unless I am satisfied that you do not pose a risk of committing a reportable offence in the future. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied of that matter and, accordingly, must make an order. The maximum reporting period is 15 years. Having regard to the seriousness of this offending and the insidious nature of family violence within a relationship, I think that I should apply the maximum period. Accordingly, I order that your name be placed on the register pursuant to that Act and that you comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for a period of fifteen years, which will commence on the date of your actual release from prison.
• I make a family violence order which will take effect from now because you are in Court listening to make that order and will continue for an indefinite period. The conditions of the order are as follows:
• That you are not to stalk the complainant.
• That you are not to directly or indirectly threaten, abuse or assault the complainant.
• You are not to counsel or instigate any other person to threaten, abuse or assault the complainant.
• You are not to be found within 100 metres of or contact the complainant directly or indirectly including by any form of electronic or other communication.
• You are not to enter the premises of [address] where the complaint is presently living or any other premises or place where she may be staying or living from time to time.
• You are not to go within 100 metres of the boundary of any such premises.
• You are not damage any such premises or any furniture household effects or other items which are there.
• You are not to damage any personal or property owned or possessed by the complainant.
• You must immediately surrender any firearm, part of any firearm or ammunition or firearm licence or permit in your possession to a police officer or police station. You are not to apply for any licence or permit under the Firearms Act. You are to forfeit and immediately surrender any licence or permit held pursuant to the Firearms Act and in your possession or police station or police officer.
• You must not during the period of the order possess any firearm, part of a firearm or any ammunition.