GS v The the Queen; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v GS

GS was convicted of a number of charges, including intentionally choking another person. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against GS's acquittal on some charges, and GS appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal related to the interpretation of the term "intentionally chokes" in section 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and the consistency of GS's convictions in relation to choking incidents. GS also appealed against the severity of his sentence.

The Court considered whether the primary judge had correctly interpreted "intentionally chokes" as meaning "intentionally apply pressure to the neck so as to be capable of affecting the breath or the flow of blood to or from the head." The Court held that the primary judge's interpretation was incorrect and that the term should be understood in the context of the legislative purpose to deter controlling behaviours by perpetrators of family and domestic violence. The Court found that it was open to the jury to convict GS of choking on its correct construction. The Court also rejected the argument that GS's conviction in relation to one incident was inconsistent with his acquittal in relation to other incidents. The Court held that the evidence in relation to the fourth incident was supported by bruising and did not lead to an inconsistent verdict.

The Court dismissed the appeal against GS's acquittal and conviction, and held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court also declined to exercise its discretion to remit the matter for retrial, given that GS had already served a longer time in prison than the head sentence imposed.

The Court's decision clarifies the meaning of "intentionally chokes" in section 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and confirms that the term should be interpreted in the context of the legislative purpose to deter controlling behaviours by perpetrators of family and domestic violence. The Court also confirms that convictions for choking incidents may be consistent even if the evidence in relation to each incident varies. The Court's decision does not alter GS's conviction or sentence.