Carlson (a pseudonym) v Riel (Ruling)
[2025] VCC 1469
•28 August 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT SHEPPARTON CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| TIMOTHY CARLSON (A PSEUDONYM) and |
| v |
| INFORMANT HARRY VAN RIEL |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Hawkins | |
WHERE HELD: | Shepparton | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 July 2025 – 30 July 2025 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 28 August 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Carlson (a pseudonym) & Anor v Riel (Ruling) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1469 | |
REVISED REASONS FOR RULING
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - RULING
Catchwords: Appeal from Magistrates’ Court – appeal on conviction and sentence – false imprisonment – complicity – unlawful assault – unlawful application of force – defence of lawful correction – statutory self-defence
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ss 254, 256, 258; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss s 322I(2), 322J(2), 322K, 322M, 323(1)(a); Jury Directions Act2015 (Vic) ss 4A, 26(d), 27, 29, 43, 44I(1)(a), 59(b), 60(a)(iv), 60(b)(iii); Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 110; Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s 23.
Cases Cited:Macpherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184; R v Vollmer [1996] 1 VR 95; R v Huynh [2006] VSCA 213; R v Busuttil [2006] SASC 47; McFadzean & Oths v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Oths [2007] VSCA 289; R v Terry [1955] VLR 114; R v Brok Hughes [2015] VSC 312; Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645; R v McKay [1957] VR 560; R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613; R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43; R v Palmer [1971] AC 814; R v Conlon (1993) 69 A Crim R 92; R v Portelli (2004) 10 VR 259; R v Howe (1958) 100 CLR 448; Osland v R (1998) 197 CLR 316; Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462; Howe v R (1980) 32 ALR 47; He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523; Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1990) 170 CLR 249; Ferguson v The Queen [2020] VSCA 166; Ritchie v The Queen [2019] VSCA 202.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For Informant Harry Van Riel | Mr Andrew Grant | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For Mr Carlson For Ms Wilde | Ms Alice Cooney Mr James Anderson | Luke Slater Lawyers Luke Slater Lawyers |
HER HONOUR
Names
1Timothy Carlson[1] and Terrie Wilde[2] are the “appellants” as they bring this Appeal. Where I do not refer to them by name, I may call them “the accused”.
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] A pseudonym.
2The Police Informant, Harry Van Riel, is the “respondent” to the appeal. He represents the “prosecution”, or the “Crown”. To avoid confusion, I will refer to the respondent by those terms.
3The person who complains of the crimes with which Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde are charged, (the “complainant”), is Cameron[3] who prefers the pronouns “they/them”.
[3] A pseudonym.
Introduction
4Mr Carlson believes that “walking the line between discipline and abuse” of a child is a fine one.[4] He and his partner, Ms Wilde firmly believed that locking Timothy’s 11 year old child in their room and bolting the door shut on and off over a three day period, for eating dinner with their fingers, would be a successful way to correct that and other behaviours. Their strategy did not work.
[4] Evidence of Timothy Carlson, County Court of Victoria, sitting at Shepparton on 29 and 30 July 2025.
5Parenting advice from The Department of Social Services’ Australian Parenting Website, suggests - “‘It’s worth picking your battles. If you can be flexible about little issues, you might be able to avoid some conflict. So even if you dislike your child’s dyed hair, think about whether it’s worth arguing about. This might mean your child is more willing to listen and discuss bigger issues like safety.” [5] (emphasis added)
[5] The Department of Social Services, ‘Conflict Management with Pre-Teens and Teenagers’ Australian Parenting Website (Web Page, 06 March 2024) <
6This is not a case about the efficacy of differing parenting styles. It is about whether or not Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde crossed the line and are guilty of the criminal charge of false imprisonment of Timothy’s child, Cameron, and whether Mr Carlson is guilty of assaulting Cameron on two occasions in February 2024.
The Decision Appealed
7Following a finding of guilt to one count of false imprisonment and two counts of unlawful assault, the Magistrates’ Court at Shepparton on 10 January 2025 convicted and released Timothy Carlson on an adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour to 9 July 2026 with conditions to:
(i)Continue to engage with and follow all lawful directions of the DFFH while the DFFH remains engaged with the accused’s family;
(ii)Continue to engage with psychological and/or mental health services as recommended by the treating health professionals and follow all lawful directions;
(iii)Continue to engage with NDIS plan as recommended by NDIS supports; and
(iv)Provide proof of engagement to the Court by the conclusion of the undertaking.
8Mr Carlson appeals both this conviction and sentence.[6]
[6]Criminal Procedure Act2009 (Vic) ss 254 & 258.
9The Magistrates’ Court at Shepparton on 10 January 2025 acquitted Ms Wilde of one count of unlawful assault.
10The Court found Ms Wilde guilty of one count of false imprisonment, and convicted and released her on an adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour to 9 July 2026 with conditions to:
(i)Continue to engage with and follow all lawful directions of the DFFH while the DFFH remains engaged with the accused’s family;
(ii)Continue to engage with psychological and/or mental health services as recommended by the treating health professionals and follow all lawful directions; and
(iii)Provide proof of engagement to the Court by the conclusion of the undertaking.
11Ms Wilde appeals this conviction and sentence.[7]
[7] Ibid.
Outline of the alleged offending
12Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde maintained their pleas of not guilty to the remaining charges. During the appeal, conducted by way of rehearing,[8] over some 8 days, the Court heard evidence from the witnesses listed in Appendix 1, and viewed extensive video and audio footage listed in Appendix 2. The house had eyes everywhere. All of the charged offending was recorded by cameras inside and outside the house, and by the body worn cameras of attending police officers.
[8]Criminal Procedure Act2009 (Vic) s 256.
13I do not propose to rehearse the entirety of that evidence in this decision. I have regard to all of the evidence which was heard and presented to the Court. The mere fact that I do not mention any part of it, does not mean that I have not considered, assessed and weighed that evidence. The parts which I do mention, may illustrate or inform my reasons, in which I will endeavour to explain simply and directly why I have reached the conclusions which I have.
14Timothy Carlson is the father of Sophie,[9] Cameron and Katya.[10] Helena Hammond[11] is the children’s biological mother. Terrie Wilde is Timothy’s partner, and the children’s stepmother. Mabel Harvey,[12] is Terrie’s mother.
[9] A pseudonym.
[10] A pseudonym.
[11] A pseudonym.
[12] A pseudonym.
15In chronological order, the charged acts alleged by the prosecution are:
Sunday 25 February 2024
16At approximately 5:20pm Cameron went to their room voluntarily after being chastised for eating steak with their fingers.
17At approximately 5:55pm as Cameron tried to pass by their father in the hall, to get out of their room, Mr Carlson grabbed Cameron, placed his arm around their neck, spun them around and pushed them downwards onto the ground and into a cabinet at the end of the hallway (charge 2 – unlawful assault).
Tuesday 27 February 2024
18Mr Carlson permitted Cameron to speak to their mother Helena Hammond on the telephone whilst they were seated in his car parked in the front yard of their house. He remained present and recorded the conversation on the car’s dash camera. Cameron asked to see their mother. Cameron became distressed when Mr Carlson refused. The offending alleged to constitute the charge of false imprisonment against both appellants commenced after Mr Carlson dragged Cameron from the car to their room assisted by Ms Harvey and Ms Wilde, following this phone call.
19At approximately 8.00pm, Mr Carlson moved Cameron into their room while they were still on their knees. Cameron was screaming and yelling “let me go,” as Mr Carlson, assisted by Ms Harvey forced them into their room. Ms Wilde assisted to hold the door shut whilst Mr Carlson attempted to secure a large piece of chip board over the hole at the bottom of the broken door. Cameron, still screaming, continued pushing against the door and moved their arms and legs through the hole which they had already smashed in the door. Ms Wilde pushed Cameron’s arms back into the room and yelled at Cameron. Ms Harvey also yelled at Cameron, in the presence of their older sister Sophie.
20At approximately 8:05pm, Cameron managed to slide open the door and move their body into the opening. Mr Carlson took hold of Cameron and pushed them roughly back into their room with force, causing them to fall back onto the floor of their bedroom, screaming (charge 3 – unlawful assault).
21Mr Carlson then closed the door and placed the chipboard against the hole, leaned against the door to hold it shut and instructed Ms Wilde to get the electric drill. They told Cameron that they were not going anywhere near their mother. Ms Wilde then held the door shut whilst Mr Carlson used the electric drill to secure the door with 2-inch screws.
22In response to Cameron’s cries to let them out, Ms Wilde replied “you’re not getting out you bitch.” Ms Wilde displayed an extremely heightened and aggressive demeanour toward Cameron. Mr Carlson said “yes, she is going to a psych,” and instructed Ms Wilde to call police.
23At 8:14pm, Ms Wilde called 000 and stated, “I want that bitch in that house arrested for premeditated attempted murder and rape as she attempted….to murder my partner Timothy Carlson.” And a little later, “I am in charge of that bitch’s stepchildren. One of them has gone completely psychotic because of her.” When asked what Ms Hammond had done today, Ms Wilde replied “she called Cameron and tried to get her to come back to live with her. For eight months, that poor girl was living with her in squalor. She was nearly starved. We tried to get a family violence order against her for what she did, but everyone loves mothers.” By the end of the conversation with the 000 operator Ms Wilde said “come here, and I want that girl, [taken]…I don’t want this idiot child…”
24Mr Carlson contends that he directed Ms Wilde to call 000 to get help with Cameron. That contention is directly at odds with the recorded conversation.
25At 8:47pm, Child Protective Services also called 000 after being alerted by Helena Hammond.
26Cameron remained locked in their room and became quiet.
27Mr Carlson told Ms Harvey and Ms Wilde that Ms Hammond had encouraged Cameron to behave badly during the conversation in the car. Ms Hammond did not do so, and spoke to Cameron in a very calm, supportive and entirely appropriate parental manner during that telephone conversation.
28Ms Wilde told Sophie, Mr Carlson and Ms Harvey that the girls would have no further relationship with their birth mother because she was going to prison.
29Cameron remained calmly in their room. At 9:13pm Mr Carlson came to the door and said “Cameron, you’re not coming out.” Cameron responded saying “please talk to me.” Shortly afterwards, Mr Carlson gave Cameron a bottle of water which they sprayed in his face. Ms Wilde told Cameron to “grow up.”
30Police arrived and entered the doorway at 9:15pm. Mr Carlson told A/Sgt Mosely that he did not want to open the door to Cameron’s room, and claimed Cameron was violent. Cameron told the police officer that their father had “body slammed” them onto the floor. At the direction of police, Mr Carlson removed the screws from the brackets and allowed A/Sgt Mosely to enter Cameron’s room.
31Cameron spoke calmly with the police officer. Cameron calmly walked out of their room with police at approximately 9:38pm.
32Apart from the damage to the door, and Cameron’s personal journals, no property was damaged.
33The prosecution allege that Cameron was falsely imprisoned in their room for approximately 73 minutes, from 8:02 – 9:15pm (charge 1 – False Imprisonment).
Elements of the charged offences
False Imprisonment
34The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:[13]
(i)Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde deprived Cameron of their liberty;
(ii)Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde intended to deprive Cameron of their liberty; and
(iii)Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde acted without lawful justification or excuse.
[13] Macpherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184; R v Vollmer [1996] 1 VR 95; R v Huynh [2006] VSCA 213; R v Busuttil [2006] SASC 47.
35The Crown charges Ms Wilde with false imprisonment on a complicity basis, alleging she assisted and encouraged Mr Carlson to commit the offence. This means that, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:[14]
(i)Ms Wilde knew or believed that Mr Carlson was going to commit the offence of false imprisonment;
(ii)with that knowledge or belief, Ms Wilde intentionally assisted or encouraged Mr Carlson to commit the offence of false imprisonment;
(iii)Mr Carlson did carry out the acts necessary to commit the offence of false imprisonment; and
(iv)Ms Wilde did not effectively withdraw her assistance or encouragement.
[14] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 323(1)(a).
36It is alleged that Ms Wilde assisted and encouraged Mr Carlson to carry out the false imprisonment through her actions of holding the door to Cameron’s room closed alongside him and leaning onto the door while he drilled the 2-inch screws to secure the door closed.
Unlawful assault[15]
[15] Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s 23.
37In respect of each charge the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Carlson:
(i)Applied force to Cameron’s body;
(ii)Intended to or recklessly applied force to Cameron’s body; and
(iii)Applied that force without lawful justification or excuse.
Common ground
38There is no dispute in this case that Mr Carlson intentionally applied force to Cameron’s body in the manner alleged by the prosecution in charges 2 and 3. Nor is there any dispute that Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde intentionally confined Cameron in their bedroom when they bolted the door shut. There is no dispute that Ms Wilde assisted Mr Carlson to carry out Cameron’s detention.
Issues in dispute
A: Can the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Cameron had no reasonable means of escape?
39The Court of Appeal in a case concerning the Tort of False Imprisonment,[16] held that protesters were held to not have been unlawfully imprisoned in circumstances where there was a means of escape.
[16]McFadzean & Oths v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Oths [2007] VSCA 289.
40Counsel on behalf of Ms Wilde submits that, at all times, if Cameron genuinely calmed down, or displayed the appearance of having genuinely calmed down, they would be permitted to leave their bedroom and therefore had a reasonable means of escape.
41Mr Carlson kept changing the goal posts about what Cameron needed to do to secure release from their room. When Cameron was calm, they were not released. Indeed, Cameron was returned to their room in these circumstances in the lead up to the charged offending. By the time of the charged period on Tuesday night, it is clear that Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde had formed a view that Cameron would not be released from their room until police arrived.
42The prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Cameron did not have a reasonable means of escape from their bedroom during the charged period.
B: Has the prosecution proven beyond reasonable doubt that each accused acted without lawful justification or excuse?
43Counsel for both accused submit that their clients had a ‘lawful excuse’ for their actions. They raise the defence of lawful correction, and self-defence and/or defence of another which they submit have application across the entire charged period. It falls to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that each accused acted without lawful justification or excuse.
i. Lawful correction or chastisement
44Parents have a lawful right to inflict reasonable and moderate corporal punishment on a child for the purpose of correcting the child in wrong behaviour. However, for such discipline to be lawful, the punishment:[17]
(i)Must be “moderate and reasonable”;
(ii)Must be proper in relation to the age, physique and mentality of the child; and
(iii)Must be carried out with a reasonable means or instrument.
[17] As explained by Sholl J in R v Terry [1955] VLR 114, and affirmed in R v Brok Hughes [2015] VSC 312 [98] per Croucher J.
45A parent is not permitted to, for example, strike a child in anger, rather than for the genuine purpose of correcting that child’s behaviour. Parenting styles have changed throughout the ages. Corporal punishment has been banned in schools. It is no longer recommended as a disciplinary strategy to parents. What may have been considered “lawful correction” 35 years ago, may not be similarly viewed in this day and age.
46Parents are routinely advised to send their children to “time out” as a means of correcting undesirable behaviour. A Google search of “time out parenting strategy” gives me an “AI overview” which states:
A time-out is a parenting strategy where a child is briefly removed from a rewarding or stimulating environment to help them calm down and reflect on misbehaviour, rather than being a punishment. It involves removing a child from positive reinforcement for a set period, often one to five minutes, in a boring, neutral space. This strategy is most effective for children aged two to eight when used consistently as part of a broader parenting plan that includes positive reinforcement, clear communication, and a strong parent-child relationship, and should not be used for children under three or during intense emotional meltdowns.
47Mr Carlson’s extensive CCTV system captured virtually every word of what was said and done over this almost three-day period. Both accused were well aware that their actions were being recorded. They frequently referenced having “evidence” to support their actions. Many of their comments and actions were disingenuous, performative and designed to be later used in Court.
48In his record of interview with police, Mr Carlson described his experience of the trauma of being locked in a small room for days as a young child. He recounted that he begged to be let out but was confined until he acquiesced to his mother’s demands. He told the Court in his evidence that he viewed parental correction and instruction, as “walking the line between discipline and abuse”.
49Mr Carlson stayed outside of Cameron’s room during their detention. He even slept the night on the floor. He repeatedly stated for the camera, words to the effect that his actions were not abusive because he was not leaving Cameron alone in their room because he was right outside their door.
50Yet, it was Mr Carlson’s actions and words, assisted and encouraged by Ms Wilde, which escalated Cameron’s behaviours rather than corrected them.
51Mr Carlson firmly believed that Cameron and their sisters suffered in the care of their mother after the couple separated. His children told him their mother had been abusive and had deprived them of an adequate diet. When the children returned to his care, he endeavoured to help them establish good routines, look after their things and allow them to eat well. He sorted out issues for Cameron at their school. Cameron formed a strong attachment to Ms Wilde.
52It is apparent that Ms Hammond had a different parenting style to the stricter approach preferred by Mr Carlson. No clear parenting plan was developed. The children went backwards and forwards between their parents on an irregular basis. Whilst Cameron was living with Mr Carlson, they “ran away” and hitchhiked to Mooroopna some 30 km away from home. Cameron returned to live with their mother and did not see their father for the next 9 months or so.
53Cameron returned to live with Mr Carlson after an access visit in late 2023. Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde genuinely believed that Cameron was at risk of experiencing abuse if they returned to live with Ms Hammond. It is clear that they relied upon this fear to justify their actions in disciplining Cameron.
54Things escalated after the knife and fork incident when Cameron asked to call their mum. Mr Carlson weaponised, what should have been Cameron’s right, into a “privilege” which had to be earned through “appropriate” behaviour. Whilst imprisoned in their room, Cameron pleaded to speak to their mum. Mr Carlson refused and told Cameron that it would only happen when they were calm. Even when Cameron was calm and showing no signs of physical aggression, Mr Carlson continued to refuse to allow Cameron to speak to Ms Hammond.
55While Mr Carlson attempted to preserve a rational and balanced demeanour for the camera, his actions only served to trigger Cameron’s distress. They escalated leading to the charge 2 assault.
56Mr Carlson counselled Cameron that in tearing up their (Cameron’s) diaries, they were “tearing up the only evidence of the woman who has hideously abused you. And you are throwing that back in our faces as a fuck you because we asked you to use a knife and fork with dinner. Doesn’t that sound petty?”
57These exchanges continued over the course of the Sunday night. Over the evening Mr Carlson repeatedly moved the goal posts. The conditions of Cameron’s release began with “you must calm down”. When Cameron was calm, they were not released. Instead, Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde told Cameron: “you need to talk about what is making you like this”. When Cameron did not provide an adequate response, they were told that their punishment would be that they stay (locked) in their room for the evening. Whilst Cameron was locked in their room, they were continually and repeatedly taunted by Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde. Cameron was denied access to the toilet until Mr Carlson deemed it was time to go. When Cameron again asked Mr Carlson to call Helena, their father told their sister “she is getting borderline, she is copying her birth mother’s behaviours.”
58Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde discussed that Cameron would not be able to get the police to take them to Ms Hammond’s house because she is a family violence perpetrator. Ms Wilde made threats such as “Well, Cameron, you are either going to grow up and apologise or you’re going to be bolted into your room for the night.” When Ms Wilde asked, “are you going to apologise and behave and discuss this rationally or no?” Cameron responded by quietly crying while their door was drilled shut.
59Eventually, Ms Hammond was called and spoke to Cameron on the Sunday night. Cameron asked her to come and get them, but Ms Hammond was forced to explain to Cameron that she could not come because Mr Carlson would not allow it, and she would be trespassing if she came onto the property. During this conversation, Mr Carlson denied to Ms Hammond that Cameron was bolted into their room and promised that if Cameron behaved, they would have access with her at a convenient time during the next week. Again, the promised visit became a weapon to enforce discipline. For example, Mr Carlson reminded Cameron as he drilled their door shut that night, that they would not be able to visit their mother unless they calmed down.
60The events of Sunday night do not form part of the charged offending but show important context to the nature of the “discipline” used in the Carlson/Wilde household. It was highly abusive and was responsible for Cameron’s subsequent escalation. A child’s contact with their parent is a right. It is not a “privilege” akin to use of a PlayStation, which can be removed as a form of discipline.
61Despite remaining calm whilst bolted in their room for the night, Cameron was not permitted to leave to go to school with their sisters on Monday morning. During a brief period out of the room, Cameron was calm and compliant. Regardless, they were denied contact with their mother and was secured back in their room. Unsurprisingly, Cameron became distressed, yelled and pounded on the door to be let out. Ms Wilde urged Cameron to admit that their mother was an abuser. The appellants threatened to have Cameron isolated in a psych ward for two weeks. They reminded Cameron that they could not get out their window because it had been reinforced.
62Police conducted a welfare check at approximately 2:30pm on Monday 26 February. Cameron was taken to hospital by paramedics. Later that night, Mr Carlson took Cameron home from the hospital. Whilst their bedroom door was not bolted shut, Mr Carlson again slept in the hallway outside. Cameron was supervised when they went to the toilet.
63On the morning of Tuesday 27th February, Mr Carlson told Cameron that they would have to stay in their room for one or two days until they learned how to behave themselves. Ms Wilde told Cameron how to behave at the CAMHS appointment scheduled for later that day. During this appointment, alternative disciplinary strategies were discussed with Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde. They were told to take a “radically different approach to parenting.” They were encouraged to take a positive reinforcement approach and be much gentler about rules. Mr Carlson gave evidence that he implemented this advice, by taking Cameron to McDonald’s on the way home from the appointment.
64Cameron was relatively calm for the remainder of the day. They assisted Ms Harvey to prepare dinner. After dinner, Mr Carlson took Cameron to the car to call Ms Hammond.
65Cameron told their mother that they wanted to return to live with her. Ms Hammond was eminently calm and reasonable during this conversation. She respectfully asked Mr Carlson what Cameron would need to do to visit her. He responded, “for access- wait two weeks, behave and apologise to their sister.” He also demanded no tantrums and that Cameron do reasonable things. Cameron became upset and asked their mother to call the police. Mr Carlson told Cameron that if they “didn’t calm down by 7:35pm then I will have to put you back in your room.” Cameron became very upset.
66At this point, Mr Carlson had many options to deescalate Cameron’s behaviour. He could have followed the CAMHS advice and simply left them to calm down. He could have walked with Cameron to their mother’s house around the corner. Instead, he chose to physically drag the clearly distressed Cameron back to detention in their bedroom.
67He chose to tell Ms Wilde “Helena did her usual, saying that I am the worst person,” and Ms Wilde told Cameron that “you don’t get to pull this.”
68What Mr Carlson told Ms Wilde (and then Ms Harvey) was wholly false. His actions triggered his 11-year-old child’s distress and the terrible sequence of events which followed. Ms Hammond said nothing improper during her conversation with Cameron. She did not provoke her child to respond violently towards their father or others in the house. Nor did she tell Cameron to damage property.
69Ms Wilde assisted Mr Carlson to drag Cameron from the car by picking up Cameron’s legs to carry them into the house. They dragged Cameron down the hallway to their room. Ms Harvey restrained their arms on the floor. They forced the screaming Cameron back into the bedroom.
70Mr Carlson was not motivated by attempting to improve his child’s behaviour, rather he did not want Cameron to return to Ms Hammond’s house.
71The charged conduct then occurred.
72Mr Carlson was a strong 37-year-old man. Ms Wilde was a strong 36-year-old woman. They were supported by Ms Wilde’s mother, Ms Harvey, who appears to be fit, healthy and strong. Cameron was a vulnerable 11-year-old child. Mr Carlson and Ms Wildes’ methods of discipline were out of all proportion to the need to teach Cameron to eat with a knife and fork, or even to address any subsequent “misbehaviour”. Instead, they were motivated to prevent Cameron from having contact with or returning to live with their birth mother.
73Cameron’s behaviour escalated on Tuesday night because they were not permitted to see or even speak freely with their mother. Cameron was detained in the car under the constant surveillance and control of their father. It is not surprising that they searched the car for a means of escape. Nor that they started to kick the seats in protest. Their actions were not motivated by what Ms Hammond said to them but were a response to Mr Carlson’s extreme restriction of their every move. Cameron was no threat to their sisters, nor did they attempt to damage property other than the door to their bedroom and their own diaries.
74Cameron’s detention on the Tuesday night was far more than a brief removal from a more stimulating environment. It occurred against the backdrop of Cameron’s earlier detention over preceding days. Cameron was a vulnerable 11-year-old child, who had a childhood marred by family violence. Cameron was forcefully and physically restrained in their room by three adults whilst they were undergoing a period of extreme trauma. They had recent experience of the sound of a power drill imprisoning them in their bedroom. Their toilet visits were supervised. Food and water was provided, but it was restricted. During the charged period, Cameron’s bedroom door was reinforced with a solid piece of timber. They were forced to urinate into a cup in their bedroom. As a result of the “discipline” they became increasingly distressed by the extreme trauma they were subjected to by their caregivers. This “punishment” well and truly crossed the line from discipline to abuse.
75The prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant was not “lawfully chastising” Cameron during the charged period.
ii. Self-Defence
76In respect of each charge, the Crown bears the onus of proving that Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde’s conduct did not constitute self-defence.[18] They must prove:[19]
(a) That Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde did not believe that their conduct was necessary in self-defence (or defence of another);[20] or
(b) That their conduct was a reasonable response in the circumstances as they perceived them.
[18]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 322I(2).
[19] Ibid, 322K.
[20] Ibid, s 322K, Note 2.
77Therefore, I must consider the following two questions:
(a) Is there a reasonable possibility that Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde believed that their conduct was necessary to defend themselves (or to defend another)?
(b) Is there a reasonable possibility that what Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde did was a reasonable response to the threat/s as they perceived them?
78Only where the answer to one of these questions is “no” may I find an accused guilty.
a. Have the prosecution proven BRD that the accused did not believe that their conduct was necessary in self-defence?
79Limb (a) of this test is a wholly subjective standard,[21] which requires me to consider the subjective state of mind of both Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde at the time that they carried out the conduct.
[21] The first limb of the statutory test is based upon the language used by the plurality in Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645 (‘Zecevic’).
80Counsel for Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde submit that the accused genuinely believed that their conduct in restraining Cameron in their room on 27 February 2024, and the associated assaults, on that evening and two days prior, were necessary to protect themselves, the other children in the house, and physical property in the house from the ‘danger’ posed by Cameron, and/or to prevent Cameron from running away and coming to harm.
81The test is whether the accused believed that the conduct was necessary in self-defence. It does not involve a consideration of what a reasonable or ordinary person would have believed in the same circumstance. It does not matter if the accused’s belief was mistaken, as long as it was genuinely held.[22]
[22] R v McKay [1957] VR 560; R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613; R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43.
82To determine what the subjective belief of an accused person was, the circumstances of the case must be considered. A non-exhaustive list of factors may involve: whether a person is reacting immediately to imminent danger, or has time to take before responding;[23] the relative proportionality of an accused’s response to the harm threatened;[24] whether retreat or other action was an option;[25] whether the accused acted under a pretence of defending themselves from attack, or was using the circumstances for some other purpose; or did the accused’s perception of danger lead them to believe that the use of defensive force was necessary.[26]
[23] R v Palmer [1971] AC 814; Zecevic; R v Conlon (1993) 69 A Crim R 92.
[24] Zecevic; R v Portelli (2004) 10 VR 259.
[25] Zecevic; R v Howe (1958) 100 CLR 448.
[26] Osland v R (1998) 197 CLR 316.
83Evidence of “family violence” can affect a determination of an accused’s belief in necessity where they are not responding to an immediate threat and/or their response involved force in excess of the force involved in the perceived threat.[27]
[27] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 322M.
84Unlike common law self-defence, s 322K Crimes Act 1958 does not require the accused’s belief in necessity to be based on reasonable grounds.
What were the circumstances as the accused perceived them?
85On the basis of the evidence in this case, I make the following findings about the “circumstances as the accused perceived them”:
(a) Timothy Carlson and Helena Hammond had three children, Sophie, Cameron and Katya. At the time of the alleged offending Sophie was 13; Cameron, 11 and Katya, 9;
(b) The couple separated in about 2017. Initially the children lived with Ms Hammond, in a house around the corner from the house Mr Carlson eventually shared with Ms Skinnner;
(c) The children went to live with their father in about 2021. Cameron returned to live with Ms Hammond for about 9 months in 2023, and returned to live with their father in November of that year;
(d) Formal parenting orders were never agreed. As at February 2024, Ms Hammond was permitted to spend time with Cameron when Mr Carlson agreed;
(e) The relationship between Mr Carlson and Ms Hammond was marred by family violence. Mr Carlson sought but was not granted family violence intervention orders against Ms Hammond. There were no orders preventing Ms Hammond from having contact with, or spending time with Cameron. The experience of family violence influenced Mr Carlson’s decision making;
(f) Mr Carlson told Ms Wilde that Ms Hammond had sexually assaulted and tried to kill him. She believed his allegations. He installed cameras for protection from unknown assailants, and to use for evidence in Court;
(g) Ms Wilde was frustrated that police would not take the allegations made by Mr Carlson about Ms Hammond’s assaults upon him seriously. She urged police to arrest Ms Hammond. She expressed an intent to call police if Ms Hammond came to her property;
(h) Ms Wilde and Mr Carlson did not approve of Ms Hammond’s more permissive parenting style. They were concerned the children would be abused and neglected whilst in her care;
(i) The accused believed in strict household rules, such as using a knife and fork whilst eating and no technology in bedrooms;
(j) Mr Carlson also utilised a harsh and abusive style of discipline, of a similar form to that which he had experienced as a child;
(k) The children’s bedrooms had snib-style locks;
(l) The accused locked the children in their bedrooms as punishment;
(m) They reinforced Cameron’s bedroom window to prevent escape;
(n) The accused persons also removed “privileges” as a form of punishment, such as taking away their mobile phones, or restricting their use of technology. Mr Carlson also referred to contact with Ms Hammond as a “privilege”;
(o) On the morning of the latter charged offending, the accused were given advice on alternative strategies to effectively discipline Cameron;
(p) The accused believed that Cameron had been maltreated in Ms Hammond’s care in 2023. They believed Cameron had been physically abused and malnourished. They were frustrated that their reports of this abuse were dismissed by Child Protection;
(q) At aged 10, Cameron had previously run away from the accused’s home, and hitchhiked to a nearby town;
(r) The accused believed that they must closely supervise Cameron to prevent them from running away;
(s) Ms Wilde believed that Cameron loved her, and she wanted to be Cameron’s mother. She spoke of “my girls” and “our daughters” in her record of interview. She desperately feared “loosing them” to Ms Hammond. She told police, “I didn’t want my heart broken again,”[28] and tellingly, “We wanted to keep her from her violent, sociopathic cunt of a mother, because the last time Cameron was there she was tortured for 10 months straight, by her own words. She came back to us bloated, self-harm marks on her wrists, slashed up, horrendously abused. And we didn’t want her to go back to that, so we’re trying to keep her from it, but because the court laughs us out of court whenever we try and take out a family violence order- we can’t even get past the application process…”;[29]
[28] Exhibit 19: Record of Interview of Terrie Wilde, Q 29.
[29] Ibid, Q 106.
(t) Ms Wilde was upset that Cameron ripped up their personal journal as it chronicled details of Ms Hammond’s alleged abuse;
(u) The accused wanted Cameron to accept Ms Hammond was “an abuser”, so that they would not want to have contact with Ms Hammond;
(v) During the charged period, the accused believed that Cameron wanted to return to be with their mother, and would do so if Mr Carlson permitted;
(w) The accused did not want Cameron to return to Ms Hammond’s care;
(x) Mr Carlson prevented Cameron from having one-on-one contact with their mother so that he could control and restrict Cameron’s desire to spend time with their mother;
(y) The accused imprisoned Cameron in their room in an attempt to force them to believe that Ms Hammond was abusive, and to stop seeking contact with her;
(z) The accused did not genuinely believe that Cameron would harm the other children in the house, or harm them when they were not trying to physically restrain Cameron;
(aa) The accused did not genuinely believe that Cameron would harm themselves unless they were imprisoned in their room;
(bb) The accused did not genuinely believe that Cameron would damage any other property in the house, when not confined to their bedroom;
(cc) Only once confined within their bedroom, did the accused believed that Cameron would try to escape and cause damage to the door;
(dd) Ms Hammond lived approximately 50-60m away from Mr Carlson’s house;
(ee) On that night, Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde did not genuinely believe that Cameron would run away to another unknown place;
(ff) The accused did not genuinely believe that Cameron would harm themselves if they did not restrain them in their bedroom;
(gg) Whilst the accused had been advised by appropriate services that, if Cameron were to emotionally dysregulate and present a risk to others that they should be restrained in their room to wait for services to attend, they did not restrain Cameron in their room for this reason;
86The prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde did not genuinely believe that their conduct was necessary to defend themselves, or anyone else.
b. Have the prosecution proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused’s conduct was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as they perceived them?
87Limb (b) requires me to consider objectively how the accuseds’ conduct compares with what a reasonable response to the circumstances as perceived subjectively by Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde would be.
88Whilst assessing the objective proportionality of the conduct to the perceived situation, I must have regard to the personal attributes of the accused in assessing their responses.
89Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde self-describe as “autistic adults”. Whilst I do not have any expert material upon which to understand what living with autism means to them, I have observed their behaviour throughout the charged period as recorded by high quality CCTV, through their interactions with police, and as Mr Carlson gave his evidence in Court. I have regard to their neurodiversity as best as I can understand it, when assessing the objective proportionality of their conduct.
90Subjectively, Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde believed that Cameron would have a healthier and more disciplined life living as their child, with limited, but preferably no contact with Ms Hammond. When Cameron expressed a strong desire to leave “time out” and see their mother, rather than to “calm down and apologise for their behaviour” (i.e. not eating with a knife and fork); and this desire continued after police and medical intervention; they responded by confining Cameron to their room, reinforcing the door and securing it shut with 2-inch screws.
91While this was their subjective belief, their response was not a reasonable response to the circumstances. Safe contact with both parents should always be encouraged to raise a healthy well-adjusted child.
92The accused were not responding to the child’s misbehaviour but rather attempting to prevent Cameron from having contact with their mother.
93The prosecution have therefore proven beyond reasonable doubt that this was not a reasonable response to the circumstances as subjectively perceived by Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde.
Directions
Rehearing (Hearing de novo)
94I have set aside the decision of the Magistrate. As the tribunal of fact and law, I consider all evidence afresh and direct myself regarding the applicable principles of law.[30]
[30]Jury Directions Act2015 (Vic) s 4A.
Onus and standard of proof
95The accused are presumed to be innocent unless and until they are proven guilty.[31] The Crown must prove the guilt of both accused in relation to each charge beyond reasonable doubt.[32] I cannot be satisfied that Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde are guilty if I have a reasonable doubt as to whether they are guilty.
[31] Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 (‘Woolmington’); Howe v R (1980) 32 ALR 478.
[32] Woolmington; He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523; Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1990) 170 CLR 249.
96The Crown does not need to prove every fact they allege to this standard. It is the essential ingredients or “elements” of the charges, that they must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the Crown must disprove beyond reasonable doubt, the defences raised of lawful correction and statutory self-defence.
Separate considerations
97As there are two accused in this trial, I consider the case against each of them separately, and only in light of the evidence which applies to each accused. Similarly, I consider only the evidence which applies to each charge when determining whether the prosecution have proven that charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Assessment of witnesses
98I must decide what the facts are in this case by assessing the evidence and deciding what weight, if any, to attribute to any particular evidence in determining the relevant issues. I do so by having regard to the credibility and reliability of each witness.
Evidence in this case
99All of the alleged offending was captured on camera. I also have regard to all circumstantial evidence. I have assessed and weighed all evidence in light of the totality of the evidence.
Mr Carlson gave evidence in Court[33]
[33]Jury Directions Act2015 (Vic) s 44I(1)(a).
100Mr Carlson gave a record of interview to police and elected to give evidence in Court. He promised to tell the truth and submitted himself to cross-examination. I must assess his evidence in the same way that I assess the evidence of any other witness.
Ms Wilde did not give evidence in Court[34]
[34] Ibid, s 41.
101Ms Wilde participated in a record of interview with police which is in evidence in these proceedings.
102However, Ms Wilde did not give evidence in this appeal, which is her right. I cannot use this as evidence against her or as an admission by her. Nor can I use this to fill in gaps in the evidence led by the prosecution.
103I cannot draw conclusions from the choice of Ms Wilde to not give evidence, nor can I speculate about what she may have said if she had given evidence in Court.
Good character of Ms Wilde[35]
[35] Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 110.
104Ms Wilde has no prior criminal record and is therefore considered by the law to be a person of good character, I have used this fact when assessing the credibility of Ms Wilde’s denial of the Crown case, as well as when determining the likelihood that Ms Wilde committed the false imprisonment as charged.
105However, I am not required to find Ms Wilde not guilty if I accept that she is a person of good character. The mere fact that a person is of good character cannot alter proven facts – it may only assist in determining whether or not those facts have been proven. In addition, I must keep in mind the fact that a person who has previously been of good character can commit an offence for the first time.
Family Violence Directions
106The alleged offending occurred against a backdrop of family violence involving Mr Carlson’s former partner and the mother of the complainant. The law recognises that evidence of “family violence” may be relevant in deciding whether Mr Carlson and Ms Wilde acted in self-defence.[36] “Family violence” includes all kinds of physical, sexual and psychological abuse by one family member towards another.[37]
[36] Ibid, s 59(b).
[37] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 322J(2).
107Family violence can comprise a number of separate acts that form a pattern of behaviour amounting to abuse, even if the acts viewed in isolation appear to be minor or trivial.[38] Experience shows that decisions made by a person subject to family violence about how to address, respond to or avoid family violence may be influenced by family violence itself, and other personal factors.[39]
Prosecution failure to call witnesses[40]
[38] Jury Directions Act2015 (Vic) s 60(a)(iv).
[39] Ibid, 60(b)(iii).
[40]Jury Directions Act2015 (Vic) s 43.
108Mr Carlson gave evidence that, when he took Cameron to an appointment with CAHMS on 27 February 2024, he and Ms Wilde were “told to take a radically different approach to parenting, and not to lock Cameron in her room. Instead to take a positive reinforcement approach. To be much more gentle about rules,” and to permit Cameron to speak to their mother. Mr Carlson also gave evidence that he was told that if Cameron’s behaviour escalated, and they became a danger to themselves or others, that it was necessary to “keep her safe” and call police for assistance. This account was not challenged under cross examination.
109Mr Carlson first told police about the advice he had received during his record of interview. Police foreshadowed[41] that they would obtain the nurses’ notes and “stuff like that on what occurred at the hospital”, and Mr Carlson answered “I doubt there’s anything you’ll find in there that will be beneficial towards me. You’ll – you’ll find what you’re looking for.”
[41] Exhibit 20: Record of Interview of Timothy Carlson, Q 233.
110Given that the accused have raised defences of defence of another and lawful correction, and Mr Carlson asserts that he was acting in accordance with what he was directed to do by others, witnesses from CAMHS and/or the Goulburn Valley Base Hospital may have shed light upon the accused’s account. Given that this evidence was specifically raised during the record of interview with Mr Carlson, the prosecution could reasonably have been expected to locate and call witnesses about Mr Carlson’s claims. I cannot speculate upon what evidence they would have given had they been called.
111In these circumstances, I conclude that had such witnesses been called, their evidence would not have assisted the prosecution case.[42] Effectively, that means in this case that I will accept Mr Carlson’s account about what he was told at CAMHS and the hospital as an accurate and truthful one.
[42]Jury Directions Act2015 (Vic) s 43.
112As Cameron’s sister, Sophie, was a child, and much of the evidence she could have given was captured on CCTV in any event, the prosecution could not have reasonably been expected to call her to give evidence against her father and stepmother.
Prosecution’s Failure to Challenge Evidence of Ms Harvey
113Ms Harvey gave evidence about what she observed on 27 February 2024. Her version is consistent with the defence of self-defence. As this was unchallenged by the prosecution, I must not reject or ignore this evidence,[43] and will accord it appropriate weight, in light of all of the other evidence in this case, which includes footage of what was done and said during the charged period. As a matter of fairness, I will disregard the Prosecutor’s comments regarding her credibility in his closing address.
[43] Ferguson v The Queen [2020] VSCA 166, 80.
Other Misconduct Evidence
114A great deal of the CCTV evidence played to the Court involved various uncharged acts which occurred between 25-26 February. The Crown led this evidence of the lead up and context of the alleged offending,[44] to demonstrate that the accused persons’ states of mind, and that their actions did not occur out of the blue.
[44] Jury Directions Act2015 (Vic) s 26(d).
115This evidence is frankly horrific. However, I must be careful to set aside any feelings of sympathy or prejudice and keep this evidence in perspective. I must not decide the case on any prejudice that could arise from this evidence.[45]
[45] Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) s 27.
116Furthermore, it would be improper to use this evidence for a tendency purpose;[46] that is, to go to the probability of the existence of a fact in issue. Instead, this evidence can only be used to explain why Cameron, Mr Carlson, Ms Wilde and other persons present at the home might have behaved in a way that otherwise might seem extraordinary or inexplicable.[47]
[46] Ibid s 29.
[47] Ritchie v The Queen [2019] VSCA 202, [125].
Principle of incontrovertibility
117Ms Wilde was acquitted before the Magistrate of an unlawful assault relating to her conduct in carrying Cameron into the home from the car. She will be given the full benefit of this acquittal in this case. That means that Ms Wilde had a lawful excuse for restraining Cameron from kicking out as she carried them into the house. However, the acquittal does not extend to the conduct forming the basis of the remaining charged offence alleged against Ms Wilde. The charge act of false imprisonment must be assessed on the evidence which applies to it.
Conclusion
118I find the appellant Timothy Carlson guilty of charge 1 – False imprisonment.
119I find the appellant Timothy Carlson guilty of charge 2 – Unlawful assault.
120I find the appellant Timothy Carlson guilty of charge 3 – Unlawful assault.
121I find the appellant Terrie Wilde guilty of charge 1 – False imprisonment.
Appendix 1 - List of Witnesses
| Name | Called by | Date called | Exhibits tendered |
| Helena Hammond | Respondent | 22 July 2025 | Ex 3 - 000 call by Helena Hammond 26/02 Ex A - Text messages between Mr Carlson and Ms Hammond 27/02 |
| S/C Hannah Downie | Respondent | 23 July 2025 | Ex 4 - BWC footage of Hannah Downie |
| Mabel Harvey | Respondent | 24 July 2025 | |
| DSC Harry Van Riel | Respondent | 25 July 2025 (and cont’d on 28 July 2025) | Ex 8 - Hallway CCTV footage 25-27/2 Ex 9 - Kitchen CCTV footage 25-27/2 Ex 10 - Front door CCTV footage 27/2 Ex 11 - Dash cam footage 27/2 Ex 12 – 17 – various bundles of photos and CCTV stills Ex 18 - Photos of dash cam stick Ex 19 – ROI of Terrie Wilde Ex 20 – ROI of Timothy Carlson |
| A/Sgt Tim Moseley | Respondent | 28 July 2025 | Ex 5 - 000 call from DFFH Ex 6 - 000 call from Terrie Wilde Ex 7 - BWC footage of A/Sgt Mosely |
| Timothy Carlson | Appellant | 29 July 2025 (and cont’d 30 July 2025) |
Appendix 2 – Footage & Audio Recording List
| Exhibit no. | Description | Date tendered |
| 1 | Recording of Cameron’s VARE | 21 July 2025 |
| 3 | 000 call by Helena Hammond (26 Feb 2025) | 22 July 2025 |
| 4 | BWC footage by Hannah Downie | 23 July 2025 |
| 5 | 000 call from DFFH worker – 20.47pm | 25 July 2025 |
| 6 | 000 call from Terrie Wilde concluding at 20.19 | 25 July 2025 |
| 7 | BWC footage of Snr Constable Moseley | 25 July 2025 |
| 8 | Hallway CCTV footage covering 25th-27th February | 25 July 2025 |
| 9 | Kitchen CCTV Footage 25th – 27th | 25 July 2025 |
| 10 | CCTV footage from front door camera 27th | 25 July 2025 |
| 11 | Dashcam footage of 27th | 25 July 2025 |
| 19 | ROI of Terrie Wilde | 28 July 2025 |
| 20 | ROI of Timothy Carlson | 28 July 2025 |
0
20
0