STATE OF TASMANIA v SUNNY SUNNY 4 MARCH 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
Sunny Sunny has pleaded guilty to one count of strangulation, contrary to s 170B of the Criminal Code, and to a summary offence of common assault, dealt with under s 385A of the Code, which arises from the same circumstances.
The complainant is the defendant’s wife and, as at the time of the incident, they had been married for approximately eight years.
On the afternoon of 2 December 2022, the defendant and the complainant went out for a meal and a walk around the Bellerive foreshore, and returned to their home at approximately 10:00 pm, where the defendant began drinking scotch. The complainant stayed up for about an hour, trying to convince him to go to bed, before retiring. The complainant woke around two to three hours later to find the defendant still up, and an empty 700 ml bottle of scotch whiskey on the table.
The complainant was worried the defendant would start making drunken phone calls to their friends and family and she asked him not to call anyone. This angered the defendant, and he responded by telling the complainant she was restricting him from doing anything and that she wanted him to stop calling people and stop drinking. The complainant sat down and told the defendant that was not the case but told him he was so drunk he could not talk properly. The defendant began mocking the complainant’s father and family.
Then the defendant raised his hand at the complainant as if he was about to hit her, amounting to the charge of common assault.
The defendant repeatedly asked the complainant what she wanted. Eventually, she said she wanted a divorce. The complainant started walking to the bedroom and made a comment to the defendant that she had spoken to one of her friends in Canada about his drinking. The defendant became upset that people knew about his drinking. He followed the complainant into the bedroom and asked her if her friend knew about a private matter that he mentioned. The complainant asked the defendant not to bring that up. The defendant then asked the complainant about her ex-husband, and the complainant told him to stop, or she would call the police. The defendant told the complainant he would give her a reason to call police.
The defendant then stood over the complainant, who was lying on the bed, and placed both hands around her throat, gripping so tightly she could not breathe. She tried to push the defendant off her and, after about 10-15 seconds, was able to re-position herself and get the defendant off her. The defendant grabbed the complainant’s ankles and pulled her towards him and started choking her again with both of his hands. While his hands were around her throat, he pulled her to the ground, and she hit her head. The defendant had his hands around her throat for another 10-15 seconds and the complainant thought she was going to die. The complainant managed to stand up and picked up her phone. The defendant dropped his hands and said, “Okay, call 911”. While she was on the phone to the operator, the defendant was calling her a bitch.
The defendant went to the lounge room and waited for police to arrive but was still abusive, saying, “What are they going to do, they can fuck off”. Police officers attended, the defendant was arrested, and as he was being placed into the police car, he told officers to fuck off. He was held at the remand centre and interviewed once he was sober.
He told police in his interview that he had limited memory of the incident and said he had been drinking scotch, but not the whole bottle. He recalled an argument and having both hands around the complainant’s throat, but not what he did. He was remanded on bail and an interim family violence order was made with conditions protecting the complainant. An order remains in place on an interim basis.
While the defendant does not recall his behaviour in any detail, he does not dispute his wife’s account.
I have a victim impact statement from the complainant. She provides some information about the background of her relationship with the defendant which accords with the information provided on the defendant’s behalf. Essentially, the couple have been under significant pressure and stress due to their parents’ disapproval of their relationship and marriage. They have no family in Tasmania and because of the terms of the interim family violence order, they have been apart for over 12 months now. The complainant wants to reunite with the defendant, and is very lonely without him. While she wants to give him another chance, and says that he is not normally a violent person, she also understands that his conduct was wrong, and that he should be punished for his actions. She assures the Court that if he were to react like this again, she would call the police, and she would not continue the relationship if he were to become violent again.
The defendant is aged 39 and has no prior convictions. He and his wife are both from India where, as young adults, they formed a relationship. Her parents did not approve, and the couple broke off the relationship. They both emigrated overseas, and the defendant moved to Australia in 2007. Ultimately, they pursued their relationship and were married in 2013, causing considerable tension with their families. They moved to Tasmania, where the defendant obtained full-time work with an aluminium window and door manufacturer.
At the time of the incident, the couple were upset and stressed about their families’ ongoing disapproval of their relationship, and the complainant’s family were not speaking to her. This ongoing situation was a factor in the defendant’s anger and upset during his conversation with the complainant on the night in question.
The defendant was significantly intoxicated at the time of the incident. Now, Mr Sunny, that is not an excuse in any way and does not reduce the seriousness of your conduct. However, what I can take into account, as a positive factor, is that you have not consumed alcohol since the incident. You are also committed to abstaining from alcohol in the future.
I have a report from Community Corrections. The defendant has acknowledged the impact of his actions and the fear his wife experienced, expressing and repeating regret about his wrongdoing. He has told the author of the report that he is accepting of his wife’s wishes regarding their relationship, whatever those wishes may be.
In April last year, the complainant filed an application to vary the interim family violence order and the Family Violence Safe at Home Unit responded and said it would not consent to the variation until both parties had engaged in relationship counselling, which they have both done, separately. The defendant has presently completed 11 sessions of counselling through Relationships Australia.
The defendant is assessed as requiring a low level of intervention and as being at a low risk of future family violence. He is, therefore, not eligible for the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program or the EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program. Not because he is unsuitable, but because it is thought that he does not need to engage in those interventions.
The defendant pleaded guilty at an early stage, which has saved the complainant the stress of having to give evidence. He found being arrested and placed in the cells was, in itself, a salutary experience, and so has been the impact of the court order and the period of separation from his wife.
The defendant and the complainant wish to obtain permanent residency and become Australian citizens. A sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months, either as an effective or actual term, or a suspended term will cause significant difficulties for the defendant’s application for permanent residency.
As I am sure you would know, often, the courts will impose lengthy effective terms of imprisonment for the crime of strangulation. It is a serious crime, which instils fear and causes trauma, as it did here for your wife; as I have mentioned, the complainant thought she was going to die and, to make matters much worse for her, the action was repeated.
The application of force to a person’s throat is inherently dangerous. What people often do not realise is that a short period of strangulation by applying force to the throat and interfering with a person’s breathing may result in death or loss of consciousness and cause long-term consequences. Fortunately, it seems there have been no adverse physical effects in this case, but the trauma the complainant suffered was, in itself, serious harm.
In this case, Mr Sunny’s behaviour is uncharacteristic, and he has addressed the factors that led to his behaviour, such as his drinking and loss of control. As mentioned, he has been engaged in extensive counselling and is prepared to attend more counselling, as recommended. He wants to be a supportive husband and move on with their life together.
I am satisfied that an exceptional sentence is appropriate, and I will impose a suspended term of imprisonment of nine months with strict conditions. I am satisfied that this meets the needs of general deterrence and denunciation, and reflects the serious nature of the crime.
I record a conviction on the indictment and impose a term of nine months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended on the following conditions:
- The defendant must not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for two years from today;
- He must be subject to a period of supervised probation of 12 months from today;
- He must attend Community Corrections at 75 Liverpool Street Hobart, no later than 4:00 pm tomorrow;
- He must report to a probation officer as required by the probation officer;
- He must comply with the reasonable and lawful directions of a probation officer;
- He must not leave, or remain outside, Tasmania without the permission of a probation officer;
- He must give notice to a probation officer of any change of address or employment before, or within 2 working days after, the change;
- He must complete 77 hours of unpaid community service within a period of 12 months from today; and
- He must attend counselling with Relationships Australia as recommended by his probation officer.
I record a conviction on the common assault. I am satisfied that both offences are family violence offences and I direct that they be so recorded on the defendant’s criminal record.
I make a Family Violence Order in the terms sought for a period of 12 months. The order I make is in terms of conditions 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Interim Family Violence Order made 21 April 2023.