STATE OF TASMANIA v TROY FRANCIS REYNOLDS 10 NOVEMBER 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE GEASON J
Mr Reynolds you appear for sentence upon your conviction for four counts of assault on your then partner, Kate Oakford. I am also sentencing you on a charge of damage to property, pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code. You have pleaded guilty to that charge through your counsel.
I find that at the time of the offending, you were in a significant relationship with the complainant. Your offending occurred over the period between 17 August 2020 and 23 August 2020. Upon the jury’s verdict there is no reason to find other than in accordance with the complainant’s evidence and I so find. The jury must be taken to have accepted her evidence.
More particularly, I find that on the morning of 17 August 2020 whilst staying with the complainant at a backpacker’s in central Hobart, the complainant went to use the toilets in the main building, located near the stairs. When she got there, you grabbed her by the throat with one hand and pushed her up against the wall of the toilets. She begged you not to push her down the stairs. You made as if to do so in order to frighten her. That is count one on the indictment.
On 22 August 2020 at the same address, you left those premises in the afternoon returning at about 7.00 pm. The complainant was having a cigarette with a few other people, who were also staying at that accommodation. You became angry. She noticed this and she left with you. You both walked towards your room, at which point you grabbed her by the hair and pushed her towards the room. This action caused her pain. You pushed her through the door, at which point you let go of her hair. You started yelling at her and you called her a slut. Not surprisingly, she told you that she was leaving and she started packing her things. She walked towards the door of the unit at which point you punched her to the left eye, causing it to swell. She fell to the ground where she remained for a short time. She returned the unit and eventually fell asleep on the couch at around 4.00 am. That is count two.
When she woke up at around lunch time the next day, she saw you sitting on the bed. You told her that she had made you angry as if to somehow justify your behaviour by blaming her. You went outside. Whilst you were outside, she called her sister for help. She spoke to her father as well and arrangements were made for her rescue from a nearby location. You came back into the room. The complainant, who was in the bathroom, was, I infer, sitting with her back to you. You kicked her in the back from behind, pushing her forward. You grabbed her by the hair and dragged her from the bathroom to the bedroom where you pushed her onto one of the bunk beds and you punched her to the right side of her head, between her eye and her temple. That is count three.
The complainant attempted to message her mother, asking her to call the police. You saw the message before she was able to send it. You rolled up your sleeves and said words to the effect “you are about to find out who I really am”. You then grabbed her by the throat with your right hand and held it and squeezed it tightly, and pushed her back onto the couch. When she sat down, you were still holding her throat and whilst she could breath, she could not speak. After about a minute you let go of her, whereupon she dry retched and was shaking. You told her not to mess with you and you picked up her phone and you threw it away. You recovered it and then broke it. This is the damage to property charge. The last episode of assault I described was count four on the indictment.
The complainant was in a leg brace at the time of this offending and, it may be inferred, more vulnerable to your pursuit and attack. When this matter went to trial, the complainant was forced to give evidence and was subjected to cross-examination. That ordeal must have been difficult for her, compounding the suffering she had already endured at your hands. You are not to be punished for pleading not guilty but I have regard to your plea as evidencing a lack of remorse and, of course, you are not entitled to the utilitarian benefit of a plea of guilty.
In my view, your behaviour is a very serious example of a person exercising control over his partner. More than mere control, unacceptable in itself, these actions exhibit considerable violence towards another person and require a strong response.
I take account of the matters put in mitigation. You have a history of excessive alcohol use and some drug use. I have received a report. There is nothing remarkable in that report, which in my view mitigates, or otherwise explains, your behaviour. You have a diagnosis for ADHD but fundamentally, your issues are with you emotional and social instability, and impulsivity. The only positive I can discern from that report is that you have expressed a willingness to address your behaviour and, at least by the time you were interviewed for the purposes of its preparation, you expressed the desire not to repeat such behaviour in the future and to obtain help for it.
If that is a genuine objective, it is absolutely essential that you use the period of your incarceration to participate in programmes intended to help you manage your anger. You have significant work to do, in my opinion, to achieve your own recovery from this problem and until you do that and implement it by making radical changes, you will fall into this pattern again.
The sentence the Court imposes must vindicate your victim, punish you and deter you from such behaviour in the future and, importantly, it must serve as deterrent to others. Punishment has a retrospective operation. At the time of its imposition, significant damage has already been done. In this case, the complainant suffered considerably as a result of your conduct. The purpose of addressing general deterrence as sentencing consideration is to cause others to refrain from acting in a similar way before it happens, so that someone else does not become a victim of domestic violence.
This is a difficult offence to detect and it frequently goes unreported. Upon its detection and conviction, the penalty must be significant to mark the community’s disapproval and to recognise the need for the protection of the vulnerable.
It follows from what I have said, that I consider a term of imprisonment to be the only adequate response to your behaviour. You have some recent offences of a family violence nature and there are convictions for assault in your record. Those matters reinforce the underlying and anger management, and issues with self-control that you exhibit.
I will sentence you on the indictment. The sentence of the Court is a term of imprisonment of two years and nine months, backdated to the day you were taken into custody. You are not to be eligible for parole until you have served two years of that sentence. The Parole Board will look for evidence of your participation in programmes to assist you to reform, and evidence of insights sufficient to suggest that you can make changes. On the damage to property charge, I record a conviction. I direct that the offences be recorded as family violence offences.