TRIFFETT, J D

STATE OF TASMANIA v JASON DARRALL TRIFFETT                                WOOD J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE                                           14 OCTOBER 2019

Jason Darrall Triffett has been found guilty of assault.  The victim of the assault is Jodie Blanden.  They had been in relationship for a number of years, but were no longer in a relationship at the time of the assault.  They have a young son, who was 18 months old at the time.  There was an interim family violence order in place which prevented the defendant from having contact with Ms Blanden and from going within 50 metres of her. At the time of this offence, Ms Blanden had allowed him to stay at her house in New Norfolk.

On the night of 16 September 2017, the defendant and Ms Blanden went out to a social function at the New Norfolk Football Clubrooms. During the course of the evening, there was an argument, the defendant was displeased with who she was talking to, and left in a state of anger, returning to her address.  He was also angry that she did not leave when he did.  She returned home, sometime later.  He was in an angry and aggressive state.  He accused her of being a slut.  He grabbed her by the throat and held her up against the bed.  He punched her to her face a number of times, including to her right eyebrow, her mouth and her cheek.  He punched her at least three times and it may have been more.  He yelled abuse at her.  She grabbed him by the throat to push him away.  He grabbed a pocket knife and held the blade to her throat and told her he would kill her because she was nothing but a slut.  She pushed him away.

The complainant’s children were in the house.  One of the children aged 13 heard what was happening and called 000.  Police attended shortly afterwards and found the complainant distressed, and that the defendant had fled.

The complainant was bleeding from the eye area and had sustained injuries to her face, hands and neck involving a cut and swelling above her right eye, bruising under her left eye and bruising to her mouth and chin area.  There was an abrasion on her neck.  The defendant was arrested later that night.  He was interviewed about 12 hours after the incident and displayed aggression.  He denied being at the house and assaulting Ms Blanden.  He was then remanded in custody.

During telephone calls between the defendant and Ms Blanden about 10 days later, recorded on the prisoner Arunta system, the complainant told the defendant that she was sick of his violent behaviour and would not put up with it anymore, and confronted him with the fact that he had attacked her in the dark for no reason.  The defendant made some admissions, denied causing any injuries, blamed her for the fact that he was in prison, and was aggressive and nasty.  During those telephone calls, he also made threats to Ms Blanden, which constituted the charge of interfering with a witness.  He was charged with that crime and six counts of breaching an interim family violence order by contacting Ms Blanden on dates between 27 September 2017 and 6 October 2017.  For this offending he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment backdated to 17 September 2017.

Ms Blanden gave evidence at the trial for the crime of assault presently before the Court and said that she could not recall what happened.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was because she was frightened of the defendant, due in part to the assault and also in part to the threats he had made.  The Crown tendered her statutory declaration and relied on supporting evidence such as the injuries seen by police and a high grade DNA match of the complainant’s blood on the defendant’s clothing.  The jury accepted her statutory declaration as an honest and reliable account of what had occurred.  The jury rejected the defence case which was that these were false accusations and that she had injured herself.

The defendant has shown no remorse at any stage. He maintains his innocence and blames the victim for making false accusations.

The defendant is now 39 years of age.  His relationship with Ms Blanden is over and he is now in a new relationship. The couple have a child who is in hospital, aged 4 and half months, with a serious condition awaiting surgery.

He has a history of violent and dishonest offending.  His prior convictions demonstrate a propensity for violence.  There are 14 convictions for violent offending from 1998 to 2015.  Two offences of common assault, one in 2005 and one in 2009 involved an assault upon female victims.  He has a conviction for breach of an interim family violence order in March 2017, an interim family violence order to protect Jodie Blanden, the breach involving staying at her address.  He has served many prison terms, here and in Victoria, has been given many opportunities in terms of orders such as probation, and parole, and has made little effort in response.  He is immersed in a drug culture and has an extremely serious drug addiction.  He is aware that his life depends on him addressing his addiction.  He is prepared to engage in pharmacotherapy, in fact he is anxious to engage in that.  He is prepared to engage in drug counselling.

He has had traumatic events in his past.  He needs support and counselling to deal with his grief and trauma.  The defendant grew up in an exceptionally violent household.  He was the victim from infancy and throughout his childhood of terrible violence.  As a young boy, he and his mother escaped violence and trauma together many times.  As a young man, he helped his mother and bravely stood up to the perpetrator.  He understands more than most people, the terrible impact violence has on women and children.  Now, his attitudes regarding violence are disturbing.  He lacks insight and takes little responsibility for his violent behaviours and looks for excuses.

Despite all I have said, I consider that that the defendant still has prospects.  We all have choices in the paths we take.  He could choose to engage in rehabilitation programs for drugs and violence, put this behind him and ultimately, be someone who can help others achieve the same goal.  Mr Triffett, society does care that you should take this path, not just for the sake of the safety of other people, but for your own sake too.  But this has to be your decision and your effort.  You have to begin with an understanding and an attitude that your conduct was appalling and presently, you do not have that understanding and attitude.

You are presently not assessed as suitable for many programs, including the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program because of severe substance dependency and concerns about aggression and conflict.  I note that you do wish to participate in the Family Violence Intervention Program and also the EQUIPS addiction program, and I note that you hope to be reassessed as suitable for both of those programs.

I note that by committing this assault, you have breached the conditions of a suspended sentence of two months’ imprisonment that had been imposed on 29 October 2015 for two offences of common assault involving the assault of strangers in a public place. The sentence is activated.

The defendant has served the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment imposed for one count of interfering with a witness and the breaches of the interim family violence order that I mentioned, by 17 June 2018.  He was remanded in custody and released on bail in relation to this crime on 11 August 2018, and returned to custody in May 2019, and those periods of remand in custody should be attributed to this crime.  The sentence I impose should be backdated to reflect those periods in custody.

I take into account, as pointed out by defence counsel, that there was a period from 11 August 2018 to 7 May 2019 when there was no offending.  As I have said, there are chances he may reform if he addresses his drug addiction and I consider I should make some provision for parole.

However, the sentence has to be heavy.  This was a cowardly attack on a vulnerable female partner who was entitled to feel safe in her own home and safe under the protection of an interim family violence order.  The assault involving multiple blows resulting in physical injury, was a serious example and there was the added conduct of threatening to kill her with a knife held to her throat which was in itself a very serious assault.  The sentence must send an unambiguous message to the defendant and others inclined to be violent to women, that this violence will not be tolerated.

The two month activated sentence is to commence on 17 March 2019.  In relation to the assault, I record a conviction and impose a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment, to be served cumulatively to the term of two months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is not to be eligible for parole until he has served 10 months of that term of 16 months’ imprisonment.

I order that the count of assault be recorded in the defendant’s record of prior convictions as a family violence offence.

The pocket knife is forfeited to the State under s16 of the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act, the value of the item is one dollar.