STATE OF TASMANIA v STEPHEN JOHN YOUNG SHANAHAN CJ
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 17 AUGUST 2026
Stephen John Young, you have pleaded guilty to one count of persistent family violence contrary to s 170A(2) of the Criminal Code 1924 in that at St Helens in Tasmania, between on or about the 1 January 2020 and 11 August 2022, you committed persistent family violence against Jacinta Ray, a person with whom you were in a family relationship.
You were born on 29 April 1963, and you are currently aged 63 years. The complainant, Jacinta Ray, was born on 11 April 1963. You and the complainant began a relationship after connecting through Facebook, and that relationship continued between January 2020 and August 2022.
In the course of that relationship, the complainant moved to your property at St Helens in 2021. Your property comprised a shed on a block of land, and you lived in the shed. The complainant purchased a caravan for the purpose of travelling, which was also stored on the land.
During the relationship, you behaved in a controlling and verbally abusive manner towards the complainant. You would become agitated when she received a text message from her daughter. You would verbally abuse the complainant by yelling and swearing at her if she did not comply with your rules. On occasion, you would pick the complainant up by a belt secured around her pants and lift her up off the floor. You would grab her around the neck and push her.
During January or February 2020, the complainant spoke to a friend about your behaviour. The complainant and her friend were in the kitchen alone at her friend’s property. The complainant started to cry and told her friend that she needed to tell her something. The complainant told her friend that you hit her. She told her that there had been episodes when you would follow her around ranting and would lash out violently at her. She also told her that you would try to strangle her. The complainant’s friend suggested that the word “hand” be used as a code word in case the complainant needed to text her and ask her for assistance.
On 5 August 2020, you and the complainant were watching television on the couch. You had both been drinking and were under the influence of alcohol. The complainant went to open a bottle of wine and you told her not to. You and the complainant got into an argument and the complainant went to the main bedroom. You followed the complainant to the bedroom and yelled, “Shut up, I’ll make you shut up.” You grabbed her around the neck and pushed her backwards onto a couch. The complainant was pinned down on the couch by you holding her neck. Whilst your hand was on her neck, you grabbed a garment which was hanging over the arm of the couch and with your other hand, you forced it into her mouth.
The complainant could not recall what the material was, however, it was a lighter material consistent with it being a shirt. In forcing the material into the complainant’s mouth you used considerable force. She was choking as you had your hand in the complainant’s mouth and were pushing the garment down to the back of her throat.
The complainant believed she was in danger. She thought to herself, “This is it.” She bit you on the thumb whilst it was inside her mouth, and you released your grip. The complainant removed the garment from her mouth and went and crouched in the corner of the bedroom in the shed. She noticed that she had blood in her mouth which she spat out. You stood over her with a towel which you gave to her to clean the blood from the floor.
The complainant fled from the property and sent a text message to her friend, indicating she needed help. She sent a message using the code word, “hand”. Her friend phoned the police. As the complainant drove towards Hobart, she was at the southern edge of Scamander when police called her and asked if she was okay. The complainant indicated she was fine and drove to Hobart. As a result of this assault, the complainant’s mouth was enlarged and sore. She took photographs of the cuts to her mouth.
You and the complainant subsequently began communicating again by sending text messages to each other. The complainant subsequently saw you, and you rekindled your relationship.
During July 2022, you and the complainant were at your property. You pushed the complainant against a whiteboard in the living room area of the shed with one hand around her neck with considerable force. The complainant was saying, “You’re choking me, you’re choking me.” You released your grip.
As a result of this assault, the complainant’s voice was raspy and sore. She went to work that day and asked to work in a non-speaking role. The complainant sent you a message asking to be civil. You said, “Your dog scratched the door, and I thought you would have heard it.”
On 11 August 2022, the complainant woke up and went to the shed at the property at 6.30am. She said “Morning” to you, you were watching television. The complainant had a shower and got ready in the bathroom. You entered the bathroom and said, “I want to talk to you, it’s your responsibility to let the dog in.” The complainant walked to the kitchen area and approached the sink. You said, “I just want to fucking talk to you.” The complainant told you she was going to work and that you could speak that night. You approached the complainant and pushed her. You turned and walked away from the complainant. The complainant started walking towards you, and you turned around and hit her with a closed right fist to her jaw in a backhand motion. The complainant was shocked. She started shaking and did not feel right. You said, “For God’s sake, I just tapped you.”
The complainant went to work and told her manager she had to go to hospital, that you had hurt her and you had done it before. She was distressed.
The complainant presented to the emergency department of the St Helens District Hospital at 7.30am on 11 August 2022. The complainant was teary and shaking. She was asked about the mechanism of the injury, and she made a gesture of a fist and moved it such that it was striking her jaw.
A nurse at the hospital asked what happened and the complainant said, “It was at home this morning, it was my partner, he hit me. It’s my fault, I made him angry.” The complainant underwent an X-ray and was diagnosed with a fracture of the mandibular ramus, the lower jawbone. She was referred to a specialist clinic for surgery and underwent surgery to correct the break. The complainant then returned to your property to get her belongings and drove to Hobart.
On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 8.40pm, police attended your address and you were placed under arrest for family violence. You were transported to the St Helens police station where you participated in an electronically recorded interview with police.
Under caution, you stated you had been in a relationship with the complainant for two and a half years. You went to school together. The complainant sent you a message and you started seeing each other. You lived together. The complainant spent a lot of time in her caravan. You sometimes ate together. You had been going downhill the last couple of months. You had not been getting on that well. You had sort of had a bit of a laugh the last couple of months. Basically, you had been friends with benefits. You both contributed to the running of the property.
You were asked about the previous morning and you said:
“We did have heated words and everything and she was screaming at me to back off and I was screaming at her to back off, and I turned around and walked away and then I knew she was coming towards me. I was not even looking at her mate, I just flicked my hand back like that and have hit her obviously.”
You could not remember what the basis of the argument was. You walked off and flung your hand back. You knew you had hit her. It was not a light sort of hit. When you flung your hand back you knew you had hit her. You said there was no malice in it. There was no intention. You said:
“I never fronted her to hit her or anything like that, it was just a reaction. A reflex mainly. I just flung my hand back and caught her flush.
That is not accepted by the State. You said this occurred in the shed at [address redacted] St Helens near the kitchen at 8am the previous morning. You said you did not know where your arm connected with the complainant’s body. You were not looking at her. Once you hit her, she went, “Oh my God, you.” She said you had dislocated her jaw. You did not know where you hit her but you knew it was a fairly firm hit. You said it would have been the back of your hand that connected with her. When asked what level of force you used on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being as light as you could touch and 10 being as heavy as you could swing, you said, “Probably 4 or 5 on that scale.”
You said it was just a reflex thing, it was an accident and you had no malice. You said, “It was a bloody accident, and it turned out really bad.” Further, that the complainant continued getting ready for work and you walked away from her and asked if she was all right. She got in the car and drove off and went to hospital. You asked her if she was okay when she returned home. When you were asked what you were hoping to achieve, you said:
“I really don’t know, like, when we were face to face she said something about me spitting on her or whatever like that. I turned around and just walked off. I don’t really know, I just sensed that she was coming at me, like she was – once I turned around and walked off she followed me and it was just a fucking – yeah, I don’t know what I need to achieve by – why I did it or whatever but it must have cracked her flush in the jaw.”
You said you were not really happy about it. When asked if you were surprised that you had broken the complainant’s jaw, you said:
“A little bit, yep. But then in another way, as I say, I knew once I flung my hand back and whatever. I’m just sorry to use this as a pun –”
– and then you said –
“– don’t know if you’ve ever played cricket and whatever, you smack that ball and it just – just a sweet spot, whatever. That is how it was the other day and as soon as I done it, I thought, oh shit that was.”
When asked if you offered to call an ambulance, you said:
“Oh, well, she would not talk to me at that stage, as you can imagine, and we didn’t say anything, and I didn’t know how. I didn’t even know where I hit her and basically and whatever and then as I say, she got into the car and off.”
You said you and the complainant have always butted heads. When asked if you had ever grabbed her around the throat you said:
“Well, no not violently. She is no shrinking violet mate, I’ve had to hold her off me. I’ve had to sort of keep her off me.”
You said ‘not violently’ means holding her off. That is not accepted by the State. You said you did not recall grabbing the complainant around the throat around 6 July 2022. You were charged and bailed by police. You were served with a family violence order.
In respect of prior convictions, you were convicted on your own plea of breach of a family violence order on 5 February 2014, involving a different complainant. You also pleaded guilty to two counts of common assault, and one of damage to property. The particulars of the second assault described you grabbing the complainant by the throat, pushing her to the ground and kicking her.
The complainant read a victim impact statement. Your conduct towards her has had long standing impacts. She lives in a state of high alert and is often anxious, she really does not trust people anymore and has little or no connection with anyone. She does so to keep herself safe. She described the incident in which she was choked by you, the verbal abuse and put downs. These have degraded the complainant’s sense of self-worth. During her relationship with you she felt trapped. She still carries the feeling of shame and remains afraid. She continues to re-live what happened. She avoids situations that could lead to confrontation. Her sleep is affected. She has left Tasmania. She has struggled financially and has had to sell her caravan, and borrow money from friends and family.
The State submitted that it is an aggravating circumstance that your offending occurred in the context of family violence, and that your abuse and violence towards the complainant were not isolated acts. Further, that your conduct was in the context of controlling behaviour in that there is evidence that the complainant could, for example, only speak with her daughter when you were not around. You would be triggered by the complainant’s dog scratching at the door or the complainant not living by your rules. The trigger for the most recent assault, it is said, was the complainant refusing to speak to you, and you then losing control and lashing out in a violent way.
In reference to your grabbing the complainant by the throat on 5 August 2020, and the incident in July 2022, I was taken to Estcourt J’s comments in DPP v Foster [2019] TASCCA 15 at [27] regarding the danger of placing your hands around someone’s neck. It is also useful to note his Honour’s reference to the High Court in R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48, 259 CLR 256 at [21] where it was acknowledged that sentencing practices for offences involving domestic violence “may depart from past sentencing practices for this category of offence because of changes in societal attitudes to domestic relations”. As Estcourt J noted in DPP v Foster “this is now well understood in the community”.
There are aspects of your observations to Police in which you suggested that the complainant was “no shrinking violet”, which gives the impression that you were seeking to blame the victim for your offending. That is also reflected in your reported observations in the home detention assessment report dated 2 April 2026. In the penultimate paragraph on page 3, the author reports that you failed to identify any feelings of remorse for your offending. It is said that you advised your “actions were not deliberate, rather impulsive acts made to protect [your] … self”, and that you “justified and minimised … [your] … actions apportioning blame on the victim referring to her as ‘aggressive under the influence of alcohol’ and that you were “only reacting to the victims attempt to strike you”, and that it was “an impulsive act to protect … [your] … self”.
The State submits I should direct that this offence be recorded as a family violence offence on your record under s 13A of the Family Violence Act 2004.
In mitigation, Ms Wiltshire explained that you have an adult son, and live on the east coast of Tasmania at [address redacted], where you have lived for about two years. You are currently in a new relationship. It is put, that your new partner is aware of your offending and was interviewed as part of the home detention assessment. Despite her knowledge of your offending she remains willing to remain in a relationship with you.
The circumstances of your new relationship is that each of you have maintained some independence from each other. However, unlike your previous relationship, your new partner lives interstate, and I am told has indicated she intends to permanently reside interstate.
Prior to your relationship with the complainant, you had been in three other significant relationships over a 22-year period, and had been married twice. Your son was born of your first marriage. I was told that you separated from your first wife when your son was a child, and that you are estranged from your first wife. I understand this causes you some sadness as you were estranged from your own father, and were closer to your maternal grandfather, who you considered a father figure.
You shared a close relationship with your mother, and you made regular visits to Hobart to visit her up until recently, when she passed away.
You have known the complainant since high school. It was put that you always got on well and saw each other at times, at school reunions. When you commenced the relationship with the complainant, you had been single for a couple of years, and the complainant had just left a long-term marriage of some 35 years.
I was told that the complainant approached you on Facebook during the COVID period and a de facto relationship ensued.
Whilst you largely accept the content of the home detention assessment report, issue was taken to the reporting under the heading that discussed your attitude to your offending. It was submitted that the report did not adequately communicate your views on your behaviour during the relationship. It was submitted that you did try to identify or convey to the report writer that as your relationship with the complainant progressed, tensions and issues arose. Further, it became apparent that there were incompatibilities, and that as those issues emerged you should have recognised that the relationship would not succeed in the long-term. The Court checked to make sure that the report had been read to you by Community Corrections. You took no issue with the contents of the report when it was read to you. The submissions made by your counsel were without reference to the author of the report. In those circumstances I am prepared to accept the report as written.
It was submitted that you now accept that your behaviour was inappropriate in the context of the mounting stress and tensions within your relationship with the accused. That your conduct caused harm and fear to the complainant, and for that, you are sorry. Again, that seems a carefully crafted account of your remorse which fails to take responsibility for your offending in the sense that it does not address your reported lack of remorse; and attempts to justify and minimise the impact of your actions on the complainant. It seeks to apportion blame to the complainant by describing her as “aggressive under the influence of alcohol”. It is, therefore, not surprising that you have, as a result, lost a friendship that had stretched over a number of years.
The attitude that the complainant was in some way responsible for her own injury was reflected in the submissions that were made regarding the mechanism of her injury, that is that she was following you when you lashed out. The following matters were clearly accepted in that regard. First, the blow was intentional. Second, you struck the complainant with a closed fist. Third, you flung your hand out and your hand struck the complainant with considerable force. Fourth, you did so whilst in the motion of turning towards the complainant. That is reflected in the nature of the injury suffered by the complainant in that you broke her jaw.
The facts establish that you wanted the complainant to abide by your rules and that there were aspects of controlling conduct in relation to how you engaged with the complainant. A point was taken as to whether stopping the complainant drinking another bottle of wine on 5 August 2020 was an example of that. It is unnecessary to say anything about that other than that both of you were under the influence of alcohol at that time, and that your relationship was characterised by your requirement that the complainant abide by your rules.
The level of violence you displayed to the complainant makes this a serious offence. There are elements in the facts that suggest a disregard by you for the consequences of placing your hands around the complainant’s throat, and intentionally and forcefully throwing out a closed fist when you knew you were being followed by the complainant. Your conduct has to be seen within the context of your troubled relationship with the complainant.
You accept, through your counsel, that you have caused harm and fear to the complainant and that general deterrence, denunciation, and punishment, are primary sentencing considerations. However, I am urged to impose a home detention order rather than an immediate term in custody. It is put that whilst serious, your offending didn’t involve any sexual element, there were no children present and no weapon involved. It was also submitted that your relationship with the complainant has ended, you have complied with bail orders, and despite living on the east coast and being of some distance, you have regularly attended in person to face the Court. Further that you have thereby accepted responsibility for your offending.
I do not accept the submission that your relationship with the complainant was of relatively short duration, this was a relationship of some two and a half years. The absence of aggravating features such as the absence of children or the use weapons does not mean that this offending is not very serious. I have already referred to DPP v Foster and the High Court in R v Kilic.
You have a history of family violence and breach of a family violence order although those prior convictions are now some time ago. It remains concerning that your response in difficult situations continues to involve a violent response and lashing out. This appears to occur when alcohol is involved. I am not satisfied that you do not have a problem with alcohol as was suggested by you in your responses to Community Corrections in the home detention assessment report at page 7, and upon which you were assessed as having a “medium level of intervention”.
It was submitted that you have not served any period of custody before, and that you have your own plastering business. You have never had any therapeutic counselling of any type in relation to anger management or family relationships. That is of some concern in relation to your new relationship whatever its dynamics, particularly given the nature of your conduct towards the complainant as it involved, on occasion, you placing your hands around the complainant’s throat and the ultimate blow which broke her jaw.
I am not persuaded that home detention is a suitable disposition in this matter. The seriousness of this offending suggests the need for an immediate term of imprisonment. It is recommended that were you to serve a period of home detention in lieu of imprisonment, that you meet a curfew condition between 7:00pm to 7:00am, or at all times unless approved by a probation officer. It appears clear that if you are to continue to run your plastering business, only the curfew model would be practical. Given that you would then be free to operate your plastering business as you currently do the punitive quality of such home detention in your circumstances may be doubted.
Stephen John Young, you are convicted of one count of persistent family violence contrary to s 170A(2) of the Criminal Code on indictment 363 of 2024. Your conduct included a serious assault by which you broke the complainant’s jaw, grabbing the complainant around the throat, pushing her, ranting and lashing out, and attempts to strangle her. Your conduct has had substantial on-going impacts on the complainant’s life. Your conduct is to be denounced and the needs of general deterrence are to be served. Societal attitudes regarding this type of offending have changed, as have applicable penalties. Those considerations are to be balanced against your continuing needs around rehabilitation, despite the fact that you are now 63 years old.
I impose one sentence. I sentence you to two years’ imprisonment but suspend the last 12 months of that term for 12 months. The order suspending the last 12 months of your sentence of imprisonment is subject to the following:
- It is a condition of that order that whilst in force you do not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition then a court must activate the suspended part of your sentence unless that is unjust;
- I also make an order under s 24(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1997 that the order suspending the last 12 months of the term of imprisonment be subject to your compliance with the following community correction order.
- I order that you are to be subject to a Community Correction Order, pursuant to s 42AN of the Sentencing Act. The order commences on your release. You must comply with the order for 12 months. While the order is in operation, it is subject to all of the core conditions under s 42AO of the Sentencing Act and the following special conditions:
- You must, during the operational period of the order, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer;
- You must, during the operational period of the order, attend educational and other programs as directed by a probation officer, in particular any programs designed to address anger management;
- You must, during the operational period of the order, undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol dependency as directed by a probation officer;
- You must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol;
- You must, during the operational period of the order, submit to testing for alcohol use as directed by a probation officer, and
- You must, during the operational period of the order, submit to psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.
You must report to a probation officer at 111-113 Cameron Street, Launceston in Tasmania within two business days of your release.
The effect of the order under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act is that the community corrections order works as a condition upon which the suspension of your sentence rests. If you breach those conditions you may be brought back to the Court for re-sentencing and required to serve the balance of the immediate term of imprisonment that I impose today. By making those orders under s 24(2), I further acknowledge the seriousness of your offending.
I order that your offence be recorded as a family violence offence pursuant to s 13A(1) of the Family Violence Act.
The intention of this sentence is that having recognised the need for deterrence, you also have the opportunity to find a new direction in life without resorting to violence in moments of stress. It is entirely a matter for you whether you now commit to improving your life, but these orders seek to give you that opportunity.