Director of Public Prosecutions v Clifford

[2025] ACTSC 307

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Clifford

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 307

Hearing Date: 

1 July 2025

Decision Date: 

18 July 2025

Before:

Baker J

Decision: 

See [52]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – aggravated common assault – aggravated intentionally attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm – family violence – offender sentenced to four years imprisonment – non-parole period of two years and six months imposed

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 33, 34B

Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), preamble

Cases Cited: 

DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329

DPP v Gale [2023] ACTSC 297

DPP v Howarth [2024] ACTSC 322

DPP v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4

DPP v Peric (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 387

Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600

O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47

R v Crawford (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 99

R v Day (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 352

R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550

R v Smith [2022] ACTSC 162

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Simon Christopher Clifford ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

E Priestly ( DPP)

S Robinson ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Fortify Legal ( Offender)

File Number:

SCC 35 of 2025

BAKER J:      

Introduction

1․The offender, Simon Christopher Clifford, has entered pleas of guilty to the following offences, committed on 28 October 2024, in relation to the same victim:

(a)Aggravated common assault (family violence) – CAN 1849 of 2025

(b)Aggravated common assault (family violence) – CAN 1848 of 2025

(c)Aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) – CAN 12514 of 2024

(d)Aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) – CAN 12513 of 2024

(e)Aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) – CAN 12512 of 2024

(f)Aggravated attempt to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (family violence) – CAN 10855 of 2024

2․The circumstance of aggravation for each offence is the family violence context of the offending.

3․The maximum penalty for aggravated attempt to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm is 25 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle is 7 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for aggravated common assault is 3 years’ imprisonment.

The offending

4․As at the time of the offending, the offender and the victim were in an intimate relationship and were family members as defined by the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT).

5․At 3:00am on 28 October 2024, the offender and the victim were at the victim’s home. The victim was sitting on her bed, and eating food when the offender woke up and started verbally abusing her. By 6:30am, the offender and the victim had fallen asleep. At 11:00am, the victim woke up to the offender calling her a “slut”. The victim rolled onto her side, facing away from the offender. The offender shoved the victim from behind, causing her to fall off the bed and strike her chin on a bedside table. The offender then pulled the victim off the ground by her hair, put her back on the bed and punched her in the ribs (aggravated common assault – CAN 1848 of 2025).

6․At 12:30pm, the offender and the victim were in the lounge room of the victim’s home. The offender placed the victim into a headlock. The pressure from the headlock was significant enough to cause the victim to be unable to breathe, and she began seeing stars. The victim attempted to escape from the headlock by pulling down on the offender’s arms, but could not do so. The incident lasted for approximately 10 seconds (aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – CAN 12513 of 2024).

7․At 2:00pm, the offender and the victim were again in the lounge room. Without warning, the offender used both hands to grab the victim by the neck and applied pressure, constricting her windpipe. The offender then lifted the victim, forcing her onto the tips of her toes. The victim began having tunnel vision and saw flashing lights. During the incident, the victim soiled herself with urine. The victim is unsure how long this incident lasted (aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – CAN 12512 of 2024).

8․At 2:30pm, the offender told the victim to enter the victim’s bedroom, which she did. The offender then grabbed the victim by the hair and forced her onto the bed. The offender then lifted a sledgehammer over his head and threatened to break the victim’s toes and kneecaps. The offender then began to hit the sledgehammer in a downward motion towards the victim’s toes. The victim was constantly moving her feet to avoid the blows. As a result, no blows made contact. The victim again soiled herself with urine. The offender told the victim he was going to “cave her skull in” and “smash her jaw” (aggravated attempt to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – CAN 10855 of 2024).

9․At 2:50pm, whilst in the lounge room, the offender grabbed the victim with one hand on each side of her head and threatened to bite her nose off. The victim covered her nose with her hands. The offender then pulled the victim towards him and bit the top-right hand corner of her forehead, leaving a mark (aggravated common assault – CAN 1849 of 2025).

10․At 3:00pm, whilst in the lounge room, the offender grabbed the victim by her hair and pulled her into the bedroom. The offender forced the victim onto the bed, before climbing onto the bed himself and placing one of his knees on the victim’s neck. He then put his full body weight onto the victim’s neck. This incident lasted approximately 10 seconds (aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – CAN 12514 of 2024).

11․At 4:30pm, the offender and the victim walked from the victim’s home to Specsavers in the Canberra Centre in Civic. A short time later, the offender left the victim, and the victim requested that Specsavers staff call the police. Police subsequently attended, but were unable to locate the offender.

12․At 5:40pm on 29 October 2024, the offender presented himself to the City Police Station, where he was arrested.

The offender’s subjective case

13․The offender is currently 41 years old. He was born in Sydney, and raised in Forbes. His parents separated when he was 7 years old. He then relocated with his mother to Canberra. He had a close relationship with his mother. He had no relationship with his father, and did not like his stepfather, who did not treat his mother well.

14․When he was younger, the offender was a talented sportsman. He was selected for the Australian Institute of Sport Rowing team. When the offender was 18, he travelled to Brisbane on a football scholarship with the Broncos.

15․Regrettably, the offender’s life took a turn for the worse when he was in his mid-twenties. The offender had returned to Canberra following an injury to his ankle, and had obtained employment driving trucks. His mother died and he was evicted by his step-father. He lived in his car and started taking drugs, including methylamphetamine. Since that time, the offender has struggled to abstain from methylamphetamine use. He has ongoing relapses which are often trigged by associations with negative peers. The offender told the author of the Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report (ICOAR) that ice had been a significant contributing factor to the offending.

16․The offender had a limited criminal history until his mother’s death. However, after he commenced using drugs, the offender engaged in a number of criminal offences. In the ACT, he has previously been convicted of six driving offences, one count of failure to appear after a bail undertaking, one count of minor theft, one count of common assault and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In NSW, he has committed five drug offences, five driving offences, two offences involving stolen goods or suspected stolen goods, and one count of failing to comply with a requirement of a police officer. Concerningly, the offender’s criminal history also includes one count of common assault against his then-partner in 2017. The offender was sentenced to three separate Intensive Corrections Orders (ICOs) on 10 November 2017. Two breaches of those orders occurred in June 2021 and a formal warning was given.

17․Mr Clifford told the ICOAR author that he is presently single, but maintains a close and supportive relationship with his former partner of 13 years. (I was informed that this partner was the victim of the common assault in 2017). The offender proposes to reside with this partner upon his release. The offender’s former partner is also in active recovery from illicit substance use. She told the ICOAR author that she would not tolerate the offender returning to substance use.

18․The Court was provided with a psychological report from Dr Aaron Cunningham, psychologist, concerning the offender. Dr Cunningham reported that the offender had been assessed against the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices, which tests for intellectual impairment. The offender scored in the bottom fifth percentile of his age peers, placing him in the “intellectually impaired” range. The offender was also assessed against the Verbal Comprehension Index, which tests the ability to assess verbal reasoning, word associations and describe the meaning of words. The offender scored in the bottom fourth percentile of his age peers in this test.

19․Dr Cunningham further assessed the offender against the Working Memory Index, which tests the ability to temporarily retain information in memory. The offender scored in the bottom first percentile of his age peers. Dr Cunningham concluded that these IQ scores indicate that the offender suffers significant intellectual impairment relative to his peers, although he noted that further testing would be necessary to formally diagnose the offender as suffering from an intellectual disability. Dr Cunningham considered that the offender’s intellectual impairment was a “significant contributor” to his drug use.

20․The offender was bail refused on 29 October 2024 and has remained in custody since that time. Custody records indicate that the offender has held multiple employment roles within the AMC, including in the AMC Kitchen. In these roles he has shown a positive and enthusiastic work ethic. Prior to his incarceration, the offender had been employed within the construction and earthworks industry sectors. He does not yet have any employment plans on release.

Sentencing considerations

Objective seriousness of the offences

Choke offences

21․In assessing the objective seriousness of the choke offences, I have taken into account the following matters:

(a)The offending occurred in the victim’s home, where she was entitled to feel safe;

(b)The mechanism of the offence in the first in time choke offence (using his arm to put the victim in a headlock and securing it with his other arm) subjected the victim to a significant amount of force and pressure. The victim was unable to breathe. Her vision became impaired. The offender persisted in spite of the victim’s attempts to free herself. The offending lasted for approximately 10 seconds.

(c)In relation to the second in time choke offence, the offender caused the victim’s airflow to be completely cut off. That pressure significantly impaired the victim’s vision.

(d)In relation to the third in time choke offence, the offender applied significant force to victim, by applying the whole of his body weight to the victim’s neck. The victim was in an extremely vulnerable position at this time.

Attempt to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm

22․In assessing the objective seriousness of the attempt to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm offence, I have taken into account the following matters:

(a)The offending occurred in the victim’s home, where she was entitled to feel safe;

(b)The offender used a weapon, namely a sledgehammer, in an attempt to break the victim’s kneecaps and toes;

(c)The offender attempted to strike the victim with multiple blows;

(d)The victim had been rendered extremely vulnerable by the earlier offences. The offender was aware of the victim’s vulnerability, fear and defencelessness;

(e)The offender also threatened the victim;

(f)There is no evidence that the victim sustained any serious injury as a result of this assault.

23․The offender submitted that the use of the sledgehammer did not act to increase the seriousness of the offence because “without the use of the weapon, the offence is unlikely to have been constituted”. I do not accept this submission. The use of a weapon, particularly a sledgehammer, is a matter which operates to render the offending more serious. However, as outlined above, I have also taken into account the fact that the offence is an attempt, which did not result in the infliction of serious bodily injury to the victim when assessing the nature and circumstances of the offending.

Aggravated common assault

24․Both aggravated common assault charges are rolled up charges, which incorporate a number of individual assaults. As the prosecutor submitted, the maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment applies to these charges. However, the criminality encompassed by a rolled up charge is greater than that of a single common assault: R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 at [164].

Section 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act

25․As the prosecutor submitted, each of the offences are statutorily aggravated by virtue of the relationship between the offender and the victim, and hence each carry higher maximum penalties. For such offences, the Court must consider the following matters:

(a) the matters mentioned in the preamble to the Family Violence Act 2016;

(b) whether the offending occurred at the home of the victim, offender or another person;

(c) whether the offending occurred when a child was present;

(d) if the offence is a serious family violence offence—whether the offender has 1 or more other convictions for serious family violence offences.

See s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.

26․As outlined above, I have already taken into account the fact that all of the offences occurred in the victim’s home, where she was entitled to feel safe. I will ensure that this matter is not double counted. The offender has a prior conviction for a serious family violence offence, being an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I will take this matter into account.

27․The matters contained in the preamble to the Family Violence Act are as follows:

(1)In enacting this Act, the Legislative Assembly recognises the following principles:

(a)      family violence is unacceptable in any form;

(b)      freedom from family violence is a human right;

(c)      the justice system should respect and protect all human rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2004 and international law;

(d)      family violence is best addressed through a coordinated legal and social response of assistance to victims and the prevention of violence by such things as promoting the accountability of perpetrators of family violence and the appropriate intervention by the police and the courts.

(2)The Legislative Assembly also recognises the following features of family violence:

(a)     anyone can be a victim of family violence: it occurs in all areas of society, regardless of location, socioeconomic and health status, age, culture, gender, sexual identity, ability, ethnicity or religion;

(b)     family violence is predominantly committed by men against women and children;

(c)     family violence extends beyond physical violence and may involve the exploitation of power imbalances and patterns of abuse over many years;

(d)     children exposed to family violence are particularly vulnerable and the exposure may have a serious impact on their current and future physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing.

28․I will take into account each of these matters when determining the appropriate sentences to be imposed on the offender.

Remorse

29․The offender has expressed remorse in a handwritten letter to this Court, as well as in his interview with the author of the ICOAR and in his interview with Dr Cunningham. The offender’s actions, in handing himself into police and in pleading guilty to the offences, support these expressions of remorse.

30․The prosecution submitted that any expressions of remorse by the offender should be viewed with caution. In making this submission, the prosecution drew particular attention to the offender stating in his letter to the Court that he never intended to cause hurt, pain, suffering or anxiety to the victim. The Crown expressed doubt over the sincerity of this statement, in circumstances where the offending involved a high degree of violence directed towards the victim over the period of a full day.

31․The offender’s letter to the Court needs to be read against the context of the evidence of the offender’s intellectual impairment. Bearing this in mind, I do not understand the offender to be disputing that he intended to cause harm in the moment that the offences were committed. Rather, he was simply describing, in an inarticulate way, his regret for having caused the victim harm.

32․I accept that the offender is remorseful for the offences.

Prospects of rehabilitation and risk of reoffending

33․The offender has an extensive criminal history which includes a prior instance of family violence offending in 2017. This is to be taken into account when assessing the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation and risk of reoffending.

34․Dr Cunningham administered the Historical Clinical Risk Scale to assess the offender’s risk of reoffending. Dr Cunningham found that the offender meets several indicators on this scale and concluded that the offender presents a moderate risk of reoffending.

35․The author of the ICOAR noted that the offender has “alcohol/drug problems, family/marital, companions, leisure/recreation and financial” risk factors present. In view of these factors, the author of that report concluded that the offender would be suitable for a high level of supervision.

36․The author of the ICOAR reported that the offender’s attitude towards case management and treatment programs was positive. The offender pro-actively identified rehabilitation treatment options which he may be eligible to undertake.  He has returned negative urinalysis tests whilst in custody.

37․I am satisfied that the offender has a moderate risk of re-offending. However, in view of his expressions of remorse and his positive attitude towards case management and treatment programs, I consider that he has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, provided that he is adequately supported when he is ultimately released to the community.

Plea of guilty

38․The offender entered pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court, prior to the provision of a brief of evidence. The offender is entitled to a full 25% reduction in the sentences to be imposed for each offence: s 33(1)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT); DPP v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 at [69] – [74].

Current sentencing patterns

39․The prosecution provided a helpful table of comparable sentences. That table, with a further relevant decision of DPP v Peric (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 387 is annexed to this judgment. (The table does not include offences of choking that occurred in the context of sexual offending, as those offences involve very different sentencing considerations.)

40․I have carefully considered the sentences imposed in these decisions, as required by s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act, whilst bearing in mind the limitations of comparative cases: R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 at [29]; DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [51] – [53]; and Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48] – [49].

41․In particular, I have borne in mind that significant differences between those comparative cases and the present include:

(a)Chatfield concerned the completed form of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, included an aggravated burglary offence and the offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending;

(b)Smith concerned a plea of guilty mid-trial, included an aggravated burglary offence, and involved the offender dowsing the victim and the victim’s dog in petrol, trying to set them alight and then chasing the victim as the victim tried to flee;

(c)Howarth involved a choke render unconscious offence which attracts a higher maximum penalty, and was committed in a family home containing children;

(d)Gale concerned offending that was carried out on multiple occasions over several months and involved the offender threatening the victim to retract her statement to police;

(e)Day (No 2) involved no discount on sentence as the offender had been found guilty at trial; and,

(f)Peric (No 3) concerned offending that was carried out on multiple occasions over several months.

Determination

42․The offending involved serious acts of family violence. The course of conduct in which the offender engaged was a prolonged, targeted attack upon his intimate partner, within her home. The sentences to be imposed must denounce the offending in the strongest possible terms. The sentences must also hold the offender accountable for his conduct, and deter both the offender and other persons from engaging in like conduct in the future.

43․The offender was under the influence of ice at the time of the offending. The offender was suffering from an addiction to that substance at the time of the offending. The fact that illicit substance addiction causes or significantly contributes to offending behaviour does not of itself mitigate: R v Crawford (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 99 at [39]. However, circumstances underlying the addiction may provide a basis for mitigation: R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 at [130] – [133].

44․There is expert evidence that the offender has an intellectual impairment. I accept that the offender’s moral culpability has been reduced, to some extent, by his intellectual impairment. Specifically, that impairment sheds light on his resort to drug use at the time of the death of his mother, and his subsequent addiction to ice. The use of drugs was a significant contributing factor to the offending conduct. However, even taking this reduction of moral culpability into account, substantial weight must still be given to the need to denounce the offending and to hold the offender accountable for his conduct: Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 at [55]. It is also necessary for the sentence to recognise the harm occasioned to the victim.

45․Whilst the victim was not seriously injured in the altercation, the potential for serious injury or death was real. There can be no doubt that the victim was terrified by the assaults. The long-term psychological effects of family violence of this nature are well known. The sentences to be imposed must recognise the immediate physical and long-term psychological harm that is occasioned by offending of this nature. In these circumstances, the s 10 threshold is crossed. No sentence other than full time imprisonment can properly achieve the purposes of sentencing in this case.

46․As the offences each formed part of one course of conduct that occurred in a single day, I will allow a significant period of concurrency in the sentences to be imposed: O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 at [26].

47․The individual sentences to be imposed will be as follows:

(a)Aggravated common assault (family violence) – CAN 1849 of 2025 – 1 year imprisonment, discounted by 25% to 9 months

(b)Aggravated common assault (family violence) – CAN 1848 of 2025 – 1 year imprisonment, discounted by 25% to 9 months

(c)Aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) – CAN 12514 of 2024 – 2 years’ imprisonment, discounted by 25% to 1 year and 6 months

(d)Aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) – CAN 12513 of 2024 – 2 years’ and six months imprisonment, discounted by 25% to 1 year, 10 months and 15 days

(e)Aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) – CAN 12512 of 2024 – 3 years’ imprisonment, discounted by 25% to 2 years and 3 months

(f)Aggravated attempt to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (family violence) – CAN 10855 of 2024 – 3 years’ imprisonment, discounted by 25% to 2 years and 3 months

48․The overall sentence to be imposed will be imprisonment for 4 years.

49․As at the date of sentence, the offender has spent 262 days in custody. The sentences to be imposed will be backdated to take account of this pretrial custody.

50․The offender’s counsel invited me to consider ordering that the remainder of the sentence be served by way of an ICO. The purposes of sentencing require the imposition of a significant period of full time incarceration, which would not be met by the imposition of an ICO.

51․However, in view of the offender’s demonstrated commitment to his rehabilitation, I consider that a non-parole period is warranted which is shorter than would be the case if he lacked that commitment. The shortening of the non-parole period will afford the offender the supervision and support that he will require to overcome his drug addiction. The non-parole period will be 2 years and 6 months, which is slightly over 60% of the overall term.

Orders

52․For those reasons the following orders are made:

(1)For aggravated attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm (family violence) (CAN 10855 of 2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months imprisonment, commencing on 29 October 2024 and expiring on 28 January 2027. 

(2)For aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) (CAN 12512 of 2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months imprisonment, commencing on 29 July 2025 and expiring on 28 October 2027.

(3)For aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) (CAN 12513 of 2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 10 months and 14 days imprisonment commencing on 15 April 2026 and expiring on 28 February 2028.

(4)For aggravated intentionally and unlawfully choke, suffocate or strangle another person (family violence) (CAN 12514 of 2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment commencing on 29 December 2026 and expiring on 28 June 2028.

(5)For aggravated common assault (family violence) (CAN 1848 of 2025), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment commencing on 29 November 2027 and expiring on 28 August 2028.

(6)For aggravated common assault (family violence) (CAN 1849 of 2025), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment commencing on 29 January 2028 and expiring on 28 October 2028.

(7)A non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months is imposed, commencing on 29 October 2024 and expiring on 28 April 2027.

I certify that the preceding fifty-two [52] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker.

Associate:

Date:

ANNEXURE A – TABLE OF COMPARATIVE CASES

Case	Counts and sentence	Details
DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329 (Taylor J)	1x intentionally inflict GBH 1x aggravated burglary 1x agg AOABH 1x drive SMV 1x assault frontline worker 1x possess knife 1x possess license issued to another Total sentence = 4 years, 11 months, 10 days imp, NPP 2 years 10 months Intentionally inflict GBH received 2 years, 7 months and 14 days	·     Pleas of guilty ·     Bugmy principles applied ·     Expression of remorse and genuine commitment to rehabilitation, substance use ·     Verdins principles applied ·     Offender had extensive criminal history, including prior family violence offending ·     Offender forced entry into his intimate partner’s home, punched her, stabbed her friend and fled. When later apprehended by police, the offender struck one of the arresting officers on the head, and attempted to reach for a knife attached to his belt.
DPP v Howarth [2024] ACTSC 322 (Burns AJ)	1x agg choke render insensible 2x agg choke 1x agg AOABH 1x contravene family violence order Total sentence = 5 years 3 months imp, NPP 2 years 9 months Each aggravated choke received 2 years 3 months imprisonment	·     Pleas of guilty ·     Limited criminal history, with one prior domestic violence offence ·     Sworn evidence regarding remorse, alcohol and substance use ·     Offender accused his wife of cheating and strangled her to the point of unconsciousness shortly after she returned home. Once the victim regained consciousness, the offender strangled her twice more, forced her head into a toilet bowl and flushed it, and repeatedly struck her head. The offender and victim’s daughter was home and could hear the offending. The offender later sent a letter addressed to his children from custody that, in substance, was intended to be a communication to the victim.
DPP v Gale [2023] ACTSC 297 (Mossop J)	1x threaten witness 2x agg choke 1x agg stalk 1x agg AOABH Total sentence = 4 years imp, NPP 3 years First choke received 20 months imprisonment; second choke received 25 months imprisonment	·     Pleas of guilty ·     Prior criminal history, including offending against the same victim ·     Bugmy principles applied ·     During an argument, the offender pinned the victim against a wall, and lifted her up by holding her throat. The following day, the argument continued, and the offender choked the victim several times, and struck her head, causing temporary hearing loss. The offender threatened the victim not to make a complainant to police, and monitored her phone to ensure this was so.
R v Day (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 352 (Kennett J)	2x choke 1x threat to kill 1x contravene family violence order Total sentence = 4 years 6 months, NPP 2 years 10 months First choke received 1 year 3 months imprisonment; second choke received 2 years 6 months imprisonment	·     Findings of guilt by jury ·     Offender had significant criminal history, including for prior family violence offending ·     The offender grabbed the victim by the throat while they were in bed. The offender told the victim to leave the house. As the victim exited, the victim grabbed her by the throat again. The victim could not breathe. As the victim attempted to yell for help, the offender threatened to kill her. All of this conduct occurred in contravention of a family violence order.
R v Smith [2022] ACTSC 162 (Norrish AJ)	1x drive SMV 1x aggravated burglary 1x attempt to intentionally inflict GBH 1x joint commission theft Total sentence = 6 years, 7 months, NPP 4 years Attempt intentionally inflict GBH received 4 years and 3 months	·     Plea of guilty during trial ·     Significant criminal history ·     Bugmy principles applied ·     The offender and another person broke into the victims’ home. The offender held the two victims in a bedroom and demanded money from them. One victim handed over an iPhone, before the other victim was able to escape. The offender poured petrol over the remaining victim and his dog, and ignited a lighter. The victim kicked the offender away, and barricaded himself in a room. The offender left soon after, but not before stealing a Ford Ranger belonging to one of the victims. The offender was also sentenced for dishonestly riding a motor vehicle on separate incident.
DPP v Peric (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 387 (Refshauge AJ)	1x AOABH 1x choke 1x common assault Total sentence = 3 years imprisonment and a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order For the choking offence, 18 months imprisonment was imposed.	·     Pleas of guilty ·     Occurred within the family violence context ·     Offender had 16 prior offences, including four family violence offences ·     The offender struck the victim on the head while she was driving, causing bruising. During an argument on a separate occasion, the offender pushed the victim to the ground. He then placed his hands around her neck and applied pressure. The victim could not breathe, and she attempted to kick the offender to free herself. This incident lasted approximately 10 seconds.