R v Boujandy

[2022] NSWDC 496

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Boujandy [2022] NSWDC 496

Hearing dates:

5 September 2022
6 September 2022
7 September 2022
8 September 2022
9 September 2022
12 September 2022
13 September 2022
15 September 2022
20 October 2022

Date of orders:

20 October 2022

Decision date:

20 October 2022

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Montgomery DCJ

Decision:

See paragraph 486

Catchwords:

CRIME - SPECIAL HEARING – defendant became unfit to be tried after offending and before trial – ‘special hearing’ under Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – limited evidence, offence committed - determination by judge alone

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 166, 133(2), 167

Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 36, 56(1), 59(1), 54, 62, 63 - 68

Crimes act 1900 (NSW) ss 61, 33B(1)(a), 59

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13(1)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) ss 39(1)(a), 65(3)

Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) s 7(1)

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 66(2), 136

Cases Cited:

Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Charles Boujandy (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Crown: Mr M Paish (Crown)
Defendant: Ms S Carr (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Duffy Law Group (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2019/372995
2019/269086
2019/256031

Judgment

1. The defendant is prosecuted in this Special Hearing in accordance with orders made 15 August 2021 in relation to 28 counts in the Indictment dated 5 September 2022, plus 20 charges, before the Court pursuant to section 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (CP Act) certificates. If at the conclusion of this special hearing I find the on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed any indictable offence, I am to determine whether or not it is appropriate in the circumstances to order that any back up and related section 166 charge or charges be dismissed; and if not dismissed, then to deal with any back up and related charge in accordance with Part 3 of the Act: s 167(1). If at the conclusion of this special hearing the defendant were to be found to be not guilty of any indictable offence, I would be required to deal with any back up and related charge or charges in accordance with Part 3 of the Act: s 167 (1A).

2. A determination has been made that pursuant to section 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (MHCIFP Act), the defendant is unfit to be tried. In this special hearing, before Judge alone, and in accordance with the agreement of the parties, evidence in the relevant indictable offences and additional evidence of the section 166 matters has been received. Mindful of the orderly conduct of the trial of all charges, in my opinion that was an appropriate and efficient course.

3. At the opening of the hearing the Court was informed of the common ground, that the defendant has delusional beliefs. His counsel put it, for purposes of his presentation in the courtroom, including his frequent weeping, that he believes that these proceedings arrive from God to test his Christian faith.

4. It is common ground that he continues not to possess the ability to give meaningful instructions or to participate in this special hearing.

5. At the opening of the hearing the defendant through his counsel conceded that the manifestation of his mental health issues arose subsequently to the alleged offending, the subject of the charges accordingly to the expert medical opinion evidence presently available.

Overview

6. The Crown case is that the subject matter of each of the 48 charges making up the counts in the Indictment and the section 166 matters concerns the defendant’s assault upon and/or intimidation of his wife Pauline Boujandy or one or other of their five children as well as his son-in-law Michael Aquilina during the almost 30 years they cohabited as a married couple, and that he unlawfully possessed a rifle, ammunition and other prohibited weapons. There is no real contest to the prohibited weapons charges which concern the rifle, ammunition and a taser of the appearance of a mobile phone as well as nunchaku.

7. The defendant and the first complainant Pauline Boujandy married on 1 July 1990, having known each other about 10 years. He was then about 34 years of age and she was about 24 years of age. They have five children. Each of the children is also a complaint. In order of birth, their children are:

1. Sally, who is now 30 years of age;

2. Mary-Anne, who is now 27 years of age;

3. Sara- Jane, who is now 20 years of age;

4. Peter, who is now 19 years of age; and

5. Ann-Marie, who is now 16 years of age.

8. Generally in the evidence each complainant was referred to by first name. Witnesses often referred to those children of hyphenated first name, by the first of those names. For efficiency, and meaning no disrespect, I will adopt that course.

9. The defendant and Pauline remain married but are separated and have lived apart since these allegations were first made to police on 15 August 2019. Pauline said that it would be against her moral code to divorce: T 50. 30 – 31.

10. Sally married Michael Aquilina on 7 May 2017. He is also a complainant. Sally and Michael lived in the Boujandy family home from marriage until October 2017 when they moved into a home which they had purchased together.

11. The Boujandy family lived at 91 Pitt Street Merrylands, then from 20 May 2017 at 101 Beechwood Avenue Greystanes, Sydney, over the period relevant to these proceedings. I will refer to these two homes as “Pitt Street” and “Beechwood Avenue”, respectively.

12. On opening, I was informed that the defence (except for the weapons matters) would be that the evidence of witnesses in the prosecution case was fabricated. This would mean that each of the defendant’s long-term wife Pauline, his children and his son-in-law gave untruthful evidence.

13. During discussions on 27 August 2019 between the defendant, Dianne, his sister and Tony, his nephew, the defendant denied assaulting any member of his family save for that he admitted having hit Sally on one occasion. I informed counsel of my observation that the defendant remained seated throughout the recording, spoke without shouting and did not admit anything with the exception of the above: T 292. 40 – 293. 13. Those discussions were recorded without his knowledge or consent. They and transcription of portions spoken in Arabic, were admitted into evidence without objection: Exhibit A, Tabs: 20 A, 20 B and 20 C.

14. During cross examination, the complainants, acknowledged their smiling participation in family Santa Claus Christmas photographs between 1993 and 2018 (Exhibit 1) and identified their handwriting in Fathers’ Day and Birthday Day card messages, expressing endearment, respect and love, to the defendant.

Counts and other Charges (S 166)

15. Count 1 - between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Sally - s 61 Crimes act 1900.

16. Count 2 - between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

17. Count 3 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010 at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

18. Count 4 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Sally - s 61 Crimes Act 1900

19. Count 5 – between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did threaten to use an offensive instrument, namely a shaver, with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation – s 33B(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900

20. Count 6 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Sally with intent to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

21. Count 7 – on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

22. Count 8 - on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Mary with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

23. Count 9 - on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Pauline – s 61 Crimes Act 1900

24. Count 10 – between 31 December 2013 and 1 January 2015, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sara intending that she fear physical or mental harm – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

25. Count 11 - on 27 July 2014, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, use an offensive instrument, namely a screwdriver, with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation - s 33B (1)(a) Crimes Act 1900;

26. Count 12 - on 27 July 2014, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Pauline occasioning actual bodily harm to her – s 59 (1) Crimes Act 1900

27. Count 13 - on 27 July 2014, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her physical or mental harm - s 13 (1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

28. Count 14 – on 19 August 2015, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

29. Count 15 – On 16 August 2016, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did use an offensive weapon, namely a knife with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation – s 33B(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900;

30. Count 16 – On 16 August 2016, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

31. Count 17 – On 16 August 2016, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Pauline – s 61 Crimes Act 1900

32. Count 18 – On 27 October 2017, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did assault Pauline occasioning actual bodily harm to her – s 59(1) Crimes Act 1900

33. Count 19 – Between 31 December 2017 and 1 January 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007;

34. Count 20 – Between 31 December 2018 and 1 February 2019 at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Peter intending to cause him to fear physical or mental harm – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

35. Count 21 – between 31 May 2019 and 1 July 2019 at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Peter intending him to fear physical or mental harm – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

36. Count 22 – On 29 July 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Pauline with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

37. Count 23 – On 29 July 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did assault Pauline – s 61 Crimes Act 1900

38. Count 24 - On 29 July 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Mary with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

39. Count 25 – On 15 August 2019, in Greystanes and Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Pauline – s 61 Crimes Act 1900;

40. Count 26 - On 15 August 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Pauline with the intention of causing her to fear physical and mental harm – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

41. Count 27 – On 15 August 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did possess a prohibited firearm namely a Ruger M-14 Semi Automatic Rifle, not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit – s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996

42. Count 28 - On 15 August 2019, at Greystanes in the State of New South Wales did possess a firearm namely a Ruger M-14 Semi Automatic Rifle being a prohibited firearm that was not registered – s 36(1) Firearms Act 1996

H72032147

43. Sequence 1 – Assault Pauline by slapping her – s 61 Crimes Act 1900;

44. Sequence 2 – Assault Sara by slapping her – s 61 Crimes Act 1900;

45. Sequence 3 – Intimidate Sara by saying “if you call the cops, I will slam your head against the wall” – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

46. Sequence 10 – Intimidate Michael by telling him “If you touch me I’m going to kill you” – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

47. Sequence 11 – Assault Sally by grabbing her by the arm and squeezing her tight with both hands – s 61 Crimes Act 1900;

48. Sequence 17 – Intimidate Sara by saying “if you call the cops I will slam your head against the wall” – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

49. Sequence 18 – Assault Sara by grabbing her head and slamming it on the nearby wall – s 61 Crimes Act 1900;

50. Sequence 19 – Intimidate Pauline by saying “Do you want me to hit you in the neck” – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

51. Sequence 20 – Assault Pauline by grabbing her chin – s 61 Crimes Act 1900;

52. Sequence 21 – Intimidate Pauline by saying “get out before I drag you out and bash you. I don’t care, I will kill you and kill myself” – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

H742429358

53. Sequence 7 - Not keep firearm safely- Rifle in bag in walk in wardrobe - s 39(1)(a) Firearms Act 1996

54. Sequence 8 - Possession of ammunition without licence - 74 rounds of .223 ammunition loaded into 3 magazines on shelf above firearm - s 65(3) Firearms Act 1996

55. Sequence 9 - Possess prohibited weapon without permit - 3 self loading magazines, each with a 30 round capacity, loaded with 74 .223 of ammunition across the 3 mags - s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

56. Sequence 10 - Possess prohibited weapon without permit - 3 self loading magazines, each with a 30 round capacity, loaded with 74 .223 of ammunition across the 3 mags - s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

57. Sequence 11 - Possess prohibited weapon without permit - 3 self loading magazines, each with a 30 round capacity, loaded with 74 .223 of ammunition across the 3 mags - s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

58. Sequence 12 - Possess prohibited weapon without permit - Taser - silver mobile phone taser - s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

59. Sequence 13 - Possess prohibited weapon without permit - Laser pointer - Black Laser pointer 303 - s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

60. Sequence 14 - Possess prohibited weapon without permit - Nunchaku aka kung fu sticks - s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

H72451736

61. Sequence 21 – Assault Sally at ‘the three sisters’ in the Blue Mountains, punching her in the face multiple times s 61 Crimes Act 1900;

62. Sequence 45 – Assault Sara by slamming her head into a window and punching her in the face s 61 Crimes Act 1900

Elements of OFFENCES

s 61 Crimes Act 1900

Common Assault

(In context of the allegations in this hearing) Counts 1, 4, 9, 17, 23, 25 and Sequences 1, 2, 11, 18, 20, 21, 45

1. That the defendant deliberately applied physical force to the body of the complainant; and

2. The complainant did not consent to the application of such force.

s 59 Crimes Act 1900

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Counts 12 and 18

1. That the defendant deliberately applied physical force to the body of the complainant; and

2. As a consequence of that assault, the complainant suffered actual bodily harm, that is any hurt or injury that interfered with the health or comfort of the complainant; and

3. The complainant did not consent to the application of such force.

s 33B(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900

Use offensive weapon or instrument with intent to commit an indictable offence

Counts 5, 11, 15

1. That the defendant used an offensive instrument or weapon (refer to definition of offensive instrument – in this matter a kitchen knife, screwdriver or shaver); and

2. With the intention of committing an indictable offence (the indictable offence nominated in these matters being Intimidation - s13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007))

s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Intimidation

Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26 and Sequences 3, 10, 17, 19, 21

1. That the defendant intimidated the complainant; and

2. With the intention of causing the complainant to fear physical or mental harm.

3. For this offence, it does not matter whether the complainant did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm.

s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996

Offence of unauthorised possession or use of prohibited firearms

Count 27

1. A person must not possess or use a prohibited firearm unless the person is authorised to do so by a licence or permit.

2. The defendant was not so authorised by licence or permit – uncontested

3. The rifle was a prohibited firearm – uncontested evidence

s 36(1) Firearms Act 1996

Unregistered firearms

Count 28

1. A person must not acquire or possess or use a firearm that is not registered.

s 4 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 - Definitions

1. "possession" of a prohibited weapon includes any case in which a person knowingly--

1. has custody of the weapon, or

2. has the weapon in the custody of another person, or

3. has the weapon in or on any premises or place whether or not belonging to or occupied by the person.

2. The rifle was not registered – uncontested

3. The rifle was a prohibited weapon – uncontested

s 39(1)(a) Firearms Act 1996

Safe Keeping of Firearms - General requirement

Sequence 7 – s 166 certificate

1. A person who possesses a firearm must take all reasonable precautions to ensure its safe keeping.

s 4 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 - Definitions

1. "possession" of a prohibited weapon includes any case in which a person knowingly--

1. has custody of the weapon, or

2. has the weapon in the custody of another person, or

3. has the weapon in or on any premises or place whether or not belonging to or occupied by the person

2. The rifle was not registered – uncontested

3. The rifle was a prohibited weapon – uncontested

s 65(3) Firearms Act 1996

Supply, acquisition and possession of ammunition

Sequence 8 – s 166 certificate

1. A person must not possess ammunition for any firearm unless the person--

1. is the holder of a licence or permit for a firearm which takes that ammunition, or

2. is authorised to possess it by a permit.

2. The defendant was not so authorised by licence or permit – uncontested

3. The rifle was a prohibited firearm – uncontested evidence

s 4 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 - Definitions

1. "possession" of a prohibited weapon includes any case in which a person knowingly--

1. has custody of the weapon, or

2. has the weapon in the custody of another person, or

3. has the weapon in or on any premises or place whether or not belonging to or occupied by the person.

s 7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

Offence of unauthorised possession or use of prohibited weapon

Sequence 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 – s 166 certificate

1. A person must not possess or use a prohibited weapon unless the person is authorised to do so by a permit.

s 4 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 - Definitions

1. "possession" of a prohibited weapon includes any case in which a person knowingly--

1. has custody of the weapon, or

2. has the weapon in the custody of another person, or

3. has the weapon in or on any premises, place, vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether or not belonging to or occupied by the person

2. The defendant was not so authorised by licence or permit – uncontested

3. The rifle was a prohibited firearm – uncontested

s 4 Crimes Act 1900 – Definitions

1. "Offensive weapon or instrument" means--

1. a dangerous weapon, or

2. any thing that is made or adapted for offensive purposes, or

3. any thing that, in the circumstances, is used, intended for use or threatened to be used for offensive purposes, whether or not it is ordinarily used for offensive purposes or is capable of causing harm.

Directions of Law

Judge Alone Trial

63. As a special hearing, the trial is conducted as closely as possible to a jury trial (s 56(1) (the MHCIFP Act)) and I am to determine alone whether the defendant, on the limited evidence available, committed the offence charged or is not guilty: Section 133(2) CP Act. I am compelled to direct myself and am bound by the following directions of law, as if I were a jury. However, section 133 does not require me to state all the matters which would have to be stated to a jury, or even all the matters which I have taken into account in determining my verdicts.

64. This being a special hearing and the defendant not having been mentally or cognitively impaired at the time of the alleged offending, the available verdicts comprise (s 59(1) MHCIFP Act):

1. not guilty; and

2. on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged.

65. There are no statutory alternative charges for consideration.

66. The fact that a defendant has been found unfit to be tried for an offence is presumed not to be an impediment to the persons representation. Mr Boujandy was represented by Ms Carr of Counsel and her instructing attorney Mr Johnson.

67. A special hearing must not prejudice the defendant anymore than his unfitness already may do. His legal representation, which he must have but in this hearing did have; may raise, on his behalf any defences a fit person could raise in a normal trial. The defendant may or may not give evidence.

68. At a special hearing the defendant is taken to have pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, unlike in a normal trial in which an accused may enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty. I repeat, because of the defendant’s competence at the time of offending a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is not available. Ultimately the question for me to answer in relation to each Count and Charge before the Court pursuant to s 166 of the CP Act is whether or not on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged at the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt: s 54 MHCIFP Act.

69. A verdict that on the limited evidence available the defendant committed an offence charged constitutes a qualified finding of guilt and does not constitute a basis in law for a conviction for the offence to which the finding relates: s 62(a) MHCIFP Act.

70. I am aware of the consequences of a qualified finding of guilt, on the limited evidence available, pursuant to ss 63 - 68 of the MHCIFP Act.

71. It is the prosecution’s burden to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of each element of each count and s 166 charge. Accordingly I must comply with all principles of law applying to my treatment of the evidence and in my reaching factual findings by which I arrive at my verdicts. I must heed all of the warnings a jury would have been given had it been empanelled. The defendant has no onus of proving anything. I do not act on suspicion. I do not act on what I believe might probably be the case. I must consider the evidence impartially. If the prosecution fails to meet that high onus, the defendant must have the benefit of any reasonable doubt and I must return a verdict of not guilty.

72. There is no dispute as to the elements of each charge, as set out in this judgment (MFI 7).

Separate Consideration of Charges

73. The defendant faces 28 counts and 20 charges before the Court pursuant to s 166 CP Act, tried together as a matter of convenience. As I have stated, I must give separate consideration of each of those 48 charges toward my separate verdict in relation to each of them, bearing in mind that the mere fact that I find on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed one of the charges does not mean that he committed all or any of the other charges. Conversely, should I find the offence alleged, not proved beyond reasonable doubt; that finding does not mean that the defendant is not guilty of another offence charged.

74. (Markuleski Direction) Initially, Counsel for the defendant asked for this direction (MFI #14) but, subsequently by email no longer pressed for it stating “…I no longer suggest that a Markuleski direction is necessary given that the complaint evidence is not in issue in this hearing.” Nevertheless, the credibility of each witness is an issue for the Court and I am mindful of the important substance of the Markuleski direction. However, if I am not satisfied that, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed an offence charged, particularly if that were to be because I had doubts about the credibility of a particular witness’s evidence, I would have to consider how that conclusion affected my consideration of the remaining counts and s 166 charges of which that witness gave evidence.

Central Witness Direction

75. This is not a case in which in relation to every charge, be they a Count in the indictment or a matter before the Court pursuant to s 166, the particular complainant is the central witness relied upon by the prosecution. In relation to some of the alleged offences the specific complainant was not asked questions of the specific act, the subject of the offence alleged or for other reasons such as on the basis of recollection, the person against whom it is alleged the offence was committed, did not give evidence of it. Pauline, her children, son in law Michael and Peter’s friend Steven Khoudair (by unchallenged witness statement evidence) gave evidence of events the subject of the 48 charges. Accordingly, in these proceedings, the question whether or not the defendant, on the limited evidence available, committed the offence charged or was not guilty does not require me, in relation to every charge, to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to the credibility of the person against whom it is alleged the offence was committed when their evidence is considered against the whole of the evidence in this hearing.

Complaint Direction

76. The parties require that I remind myself of the “Complaint Evidence” direction (MFI 14). Neither party made submissions as to the content of that direction in relation to the evidence in this case.

77. In the circumstances of witnesses being members of the defendant’s family and those such as Sally’s husband Michael and Mary’s boyfriend Vikram, being closely connected with the family, the evidence of what was communicated between them from time to time was part of an ongoing conversation concerning the safety of Pauline and in the circumstances of what they described as the defendant’s intimidation and assaults. Ms Helou’s evidence, by witness statement admitted without objection (Exhibit N), was of observation of bruising to Sara’s body and not of complaints against the defendant made by Sara to her. The evidence of Ms Dakoda Garner, by witness statement tendered without objection (Exhibit A tab 19) described Sally, in a state of fear and emotional upset when, in March 2018, Sally informed her that the defendant was abusive, did not approve of Michael’s marriage to Sally and that the defendant had hurt his family in the past including having held a screwdriver to the throat of Pauline, having told Pauline that he would kill her and of having bashed Sally in the shower when she was 15 or 16 years of age. Sally gave direct evidence of having been witness to each of those events. Accordingly, the evidence of Ms Garner was admissible pursuant to s 66(2) of the Evidence Act as an exception to the hearsay rule.

78. Generally, each of the witnesses, when describing complaints made to them by others, was speaking of something they having seen, heard or otherwise perceived of the event and the person making the representation, was called and gave evidence. Accordingly, their evidence of complaints was also admissible pursuant to s 66(2) of the Evidence Act.

79. However, in my opinion, it is not necessary to closely analyse every complaint made and whether or not it strictly falls within the provisions of s 66 of the Evidence Act; nor, is it necessary for me to consider limitation of evidence so lead pursuant to the provisions of s 136 of the Evidence Act. My reasons for approaching the evidence in this way, whilst mindful of the usual Complaint Evidence direction, is that ultimately in my discernment of the evidence, and as I offered to Counsel for the parties during closing oral submissions, I found each of the witnesses Pauline, Sally, Mary, Sara, Ann, Peter and Michael to be witnesses of truth doing the best they could to give reliable evidence on the basis of recollection. The defence ultimately in closing submissions expressly made no challenge to the credibility of the witnesses. For these reasons, it seems to me that the Complaint direction is not of great significance in this case.

80. Neither party made submissions concerning delay in the bringing of these allegations to police. To refrain from doing so, was in my opinion appropriate because the overwhelming evidence of the witnesses was of their fear of reprisal, including that the defendant might intimidate, hurt or even kill them should they speak to persons outside of the family of the subject matter of the allegations. Of the many examples of witnesses giving evidence to this affect, the defendant informing his children not to report to ambulance officers the reasons for Pauline’s attempted suicide, is a prominent example. Sally’s reluctance to bring forward the allegations to authorities for fear of the risk that the defendant might hurt her is effectively corroborated by the witness statement evidence of Ms Garner. The recorded evidence Exhibits H, J and K are direct evidence including what are real examples of the defendant’s threats and abuse such as his threat heard in Exhibit H, that if Sara were to speak to police, he would “send” her “head into the wall”. In the circumstances, that the complaints were not advanced at an earlier time, is well explained.

Right to Silence

81. As for any accused person, the defendant was under no obligation to give evidence or to call evidence in his own defence. The onus of proof never shifts in a criminal trial, such as this Special Hearing, from the Crown to the defendant. This is perhaps particularly pertinent where it has been determined that the defendant is unfit to instruct his lawyers. Although, in a Special Hearing, the defendant was entitled to give evidence and to call evidence, he is presumed to be innocent until the Crown has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that, on the limited evidence, that he committed the offences alleged. That the accused did not give evidence or call evidence cannot be used against him in any way at all in my deliberations. That fact cannot be used by me as amounting to an omission of his having committed any of the offences alleged. I must not draw any inference or any conclusion based upon that fact. I will not use that fact to fill any gaps that I might think exist in the evidence tendered by the Crown. I will not use the fact that he did not give evidence or call evidence in any way toward strengthening the Crown case or in assisting the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I will not speculate about what evidence he might have given, or have called in the Special Hearing.

Context Evidence

82. In addition to the evidence lead by the Crown specifically on the counts in the indictment and the charges before me pursuant to s 166 CP Act, the Crown lead evidence of other acts of alleged misconduct by the defendant towards each complainant. For the sake of convenience, I collected much of that evidence under the separate heading Fear/Context Evidence. I bear in mind that the context evidence was admitted solely for placing the evidence towards proof of the specific acts alleged in each count and s 166 charge into a realistic and intelligible context. That evidence, easily dispels any wonder or concern I might have had about the likelihood of what would otherwise be 48 apparently isolated acts occurring suddenly without any reason or any circumstances to link them in any way. That evidence is overwhelmingly convincing of an ongoing history of the defendant’s conduct toward the complainants including why they did not complain about what was done to them closer to the occasion of the specific acts alleged in each of the counts and charges.

83. I warn myself that the context evidence was not lead as establishing a tendency on the part of the defendant to commit offences of the type prosecuted in each Count and Charge. That evidence does not make it more likely that the defendant committed any of the offences. The evidence has the very limited purpose and it cannot be used as evidence of the particular allegations contained in the counts and charges toward proof beyond reasonable doubt.

84. Further, the context evidence cannot be substituted for the evidence of the specific acts the subject of the counts and charges. I am to consider my verdict in relation to each of those specific allegations, not on the basis of a course of misconduct. I am concerned only with the particular and precise occasion alleged in each Count and other Charge. The defendant cannot be punished for other acts attributed to him by finding him, on the limited evidence available, to have committed any Count or other Charge.

Mahmood Direction

85. Near the commencement of the Special Hearing Counsel for the defendant sought a direction in accordance with Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397 at [27]. In defence closing written submissions (MFI 17 at pg 4) the direction sought was in the following terms:

…where a witness who might have been expected to be called and to give evidence on a matter is not called by the prosecution, the question is not whether the jury may properly reach conclusions about issues of fact but whether, in the circumstances, they should entertain a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused

86. The submission put was that the Crown had not called Michael’s parents and Mr Khoudair, whose statement was admitted without objection, despite his refusal to give oral evidence. The Court was also informed by the Crown, without objection from the defence, that the defendant’s sister Dianne and nephew Tony had been unwilling to provide statements or further evidence. They were participants in the recording of a discussion after his arrest in which the defendant conceding having hit Sally, once at home, when he marked her body, following her taking a day off from school when she went to MacDonald’s just following her trial Higher School Certificate Exams.

87. The evidence of S.C. Hepburn, (statement made 26 November 2020 Exhibit A tab 4; T 297. 35 – 298. 14) explained his attempts, as Officer In Charge, to obtain evidence from Dianne and Tony. At transcript 299. 8 – 50 he explained steps he took toward obtaining a statement from Detective Sergeant Kylie Whiting but that in the end no investigating officer made a direct attempt to obtain a statement from her. At transcript 299. 39 – 50 that Michaels parents, named Michael Srn and Ann Aquilina, were not prepared to provide statements when asked. At transcript 300. 1 - 12 S.C. Hepburn explained that after speaking with Mr Stephen Khoudair’s mother, he being a young person, his request for a witness statement to be provided, was initially declined.

88. In Mahmood v Western Australia, the plurality explained at [27] – [29] that the question of whether or not a failure by the prosecution to call evidence, should in the circumstances be cause to entertain a reasonable doubt about the guilt of an accused, must also contemplate the accused’s opportunity in regard to that evidence in the trial. In the present case, the evidence of S.C. Hepburn easily satisfies any concern which might otherwise been had of a conscious or even accidental failure by the prosecution to have brought to the Special Hearing evidence which might have been exculpatory or otherwise a failure to fairly present the prosecution case. The defence did not advance a submission identifying any specific prejudice. In addition, in my view, if any concern for the defendant’s opportunity in regard to that evidence existed, it is relieved given the witnesses gave direct evidence of events and Counsel for the defendant expressly does not put in issue their credibility (email from Defence Counsel 14 September 2022 to my Associate contained in MFI #14 and closing oral submissions).

Inference

89. The parties have asked that I remind myself of the direction as to inference (MFI 14). In this direction, I remind myself that evidence is the answers to questions given by witnesses and the other exhibits. From that evidence, inferences may be drawn. There is nothing extraordinary about the drawing of inferences to then rationally infer or conclude the existence of a further fact, even though there might not be direct evidence of that further fact. This being a criminal trial, and the burden upon the Crown to be satisfaction of the Court beyond reasonable doubt of each element of each Count and charge before the Court pursuant to s 166; means that I should be extremely careful about drawing any inference.

Evidence by alternative means

90. Evidence was received in the form of recordings of police interviews given by each complainant, with the exception of Sally, and oral evidence of the complainants by audio visual link from a remote place.

91. I remind myself that it is standard procedure that evidence be given in these ways. I do not give it any greater or lesser weight because the evidence was received by these mediums. I do not infer anything against the defendant because the evidence was received according to these procedures.

presentation of complainant witnesses

92. Pauline remained composed throughout her evidence, given from a remote place. Her precision of answering questions in chief and, in particular her deliberate reference of events to a chronological course, caused me to think that she had prepared what she described of events. Nevertheless, she impressed me as being a highly intelligent woman giving truthful and accurate answers to questions, to the best of her ability and recollection. She remembered that she and her husband, the defendant moved into the Pitt Street home on the long weekend of October 2003 when her son Peter was a young child, having been born on Christmas Day 2002. Generally, when compared to the descriptions in evidence of her children, Pauline’s evidence portrayed lower levels of violence and spoken intimidation by the defendant. Pauline did not impress me as a witness seeking revenge.

93. She described the defendant as being a very fit and large man who exercised daily during their marriage. Peter, who trained with his father including in martial arts, described the defendant at the time of the alleged offences as of 100 kg and the fittest man of his age he had met. In each of the Pitt Street and Beechwood Avenue homes the garage was fitted out with training equipment used by the defendant and by their children, particularly Peter. In addition the defendant attended external, commercial gymnasiums. The defendant practised martial arts. Peter also studied kung fu. The training equipment included several ceremonial/performance swords which were used in training routines. Pauline said that one of the swords was sharp.

94. Sally having achieved her tertiary degrees in Law and Business, is presently employed at the Department of Education as a Case Manager. She provided statements to police and on 16 August 2019 participated in the recording of a DVEC. That DVEC has been lost due to the inadvertent destruction of the police mobile phone on which it was recorded. Evidence of S.C. Hepburn explained that loss.

92. Sally was an impressive witness. Whilst at times becoming visibly distressed when recounting the allegations of abuse of members of her family, in particular her mother, by the defendant; nevertheless, the manner in which she gave her evidence did not cause me to have concern that she was exaggerating or seeking revenge against the defendant. She is a tertiary educated and highly intelligent woman. She retained a detailed recollection. Minor inconsistencies between her evidence and that of her mother or siblings showed that there was no collusion between them. I accept her as a witness of truth and accuracy.

93. The statement of Ms Dakoda Garner made 4 June 2020 (Exhibit A tab 19) was read without objection. Ms Garner was not called to give evidence. She described complaints by Sally made to her in March 2018, of the defendant having hurt Sally in the past, held a screwdriver to Pauline’s throat and threatened to kill her and having bashed Sally in the shower when she was 15 or 16 years of age.

94. Michael, Sally’s husband presented as a careful witness who truthfully answered questions according to the best of his recollection. Michael is employed by the Department of Education in the Complex Case Team. He first met Sally in 2012. He said that from 7 May 2013 he was “officially” Sally’s boyfriend but, even before that date, it was common for him to visit the Boujandy family at the Pitt Street home.

95. At the time she gave her evidence, Mary was undertaking legal practice training having completed degrees in Law and Social Science. She was a conscientious witness who displayed a high level of detail of recall in the giving of her evidence. I did get the impression from her sometimes looking down and her pausing that she was trying to recall exactly a memorised chronology. I gained the impression from her presentation that she was a well prepared witness. I did not gain the impression that she was untruthful. I considered her to be doing her best to give the most accurate answers she could, having since August 2019 been aware that this day of giving her evidence in a court room would come. I considered her to give frank evidence of actual recall of events with concentrated precision.

96. Sara also presented as a witness attempting to give the best and most accurate evidence she could according to her recollection. The statement of Ms Katrina Helou, 30 August 2022 (Exhibit N) was read without objection. Ms Helou was not called to give oral evidence. She described having seen bruises on Sara’s body. When as a fellow pupil she saw Sara’s body during P.E. at school. In the change rooms, she saw the bruising on her legs, arms, chest and stomach. She recalled that the bruise on Sara’s chest was the “size of a fist”. When she asked Sara what had happened, Sara would tell her she had fallen or bumped into something. Ms Helou first saw bruises on Sara’s body mainly during P.E classes between 2013 and 2015. Ms Helou recalled that when she visited Sara at the Pitt Street home, she observed the defendant checking who was calling. When Pauline received a call, he would make her put it on loud speaker.

97. Ann being the youngest of the siblings who gave evidence, naturally retained the least sophisticated recollection. She was a patently honest witness who impressed as attempting to be as accurate as she truthfully could on the basis of her recollection. An example of this was when the Crown asked her about a 2014 event. Her evidence was (T 238. 20 – 29):

Q. I want to take you back to 2014. Do you remember an event occurring that year?

A. I do recall an event occurring in that year that is in my statement, but I don't remember at this time, exactly.

Q. Okay. You may not be able to answer this. Do you know who bought Peter's underwear for him?

A. Yes. It was my mother and father, they went shopping for my brother’s underwear.

101. Ann’s answer revealed her want to be accurate. To the best of her recollection at the moment she was asked that question, she recalled that there was some event in 2014 but truthfully answered that it was not clear to her which event it was. The following question having introduced the topic of Peter’s underwear, Ann commenced to provide answers on the basis of her recollection of the event, identified by that subject matter. Her evidence of that event in 2014 (Count 10), on the purchase of the underwear for Peter, was consistent with other evidence of that event.

102. Peter was studying youth work at the time that he gave evidence. He was the last of the complainant witnesses and members of the family called to give evidence. He impressed as a witness giving truthful and accurate answers to the best of his personal recollection. As a 19 year old in Court, Peter gave his height as 6 foot 2 inches. In cross examination he said that he had experienced a growth spirt over the preceding 12 months. He gave his height at age 16 years (2019) at 5 foot 10 inches to 5 foot 11 inches (approximately 180 cms). At age 16 he continued training in martial arts and fitness. He described his having attempted to stand up against the defendant to protect his mother and siblings as he matured.

Evidence in the Trial

Sequence 21 – assault – Sally – defendant punched Sally on the face multiple times – s 166 certificate

103. Pauline said that in 2006 she and the defendant drove with all five children to the Blue Mountains. They were at the Three Sisters Look Out when Sally whilst taking photographs with a disposable camera was seen speaking with a man. In other evidence he was described as middle aged. Sally was in year eight at school. Pauline said that when the defendant saw that, he called the family back to the car, berated Sally that speaking to the man was the wrong thing to do and whilst they were getting into the car he started punching Sally on face and on the shoulders. Pauline was loading the pram which contained Ann who was then six months of age. She does not recall how many times the defendant punched Sally. The defendant grabbed a bag of sweets which had been purchased on the drive up and threw them away.

104. Sally’s evidence of this Sequence 21 event was generally consistent with the evidence given by Pauline. She provided the greater detail that the middle-aged man said to her “that’s a nice camera” to which Sally responded “it’s disposable”. She also pointed to her family so that he knew that she was not alone. She was about 14 years of age.

105. As this conversation occurred Sally noticed the defendant’s face. She said that his teeth were clenched and eyes were bulging. She knew she was in trouble. On his direction, they all went to the car and as they did so, the defendant was berating her of wanting to have sex with the man and calling her “slut”. It was as Sally entered the car that the defendant threw the sweets away and he punched her in the face with a closed fist. When she was sitting on something she described as “the folding chair in the car that we had at the time” (the vehicle was of a people mover style) the defendant hit her again on the face with a closed fist and he continued to yell at her that she wanted to sleep with the man. The defendant hit her on both sides of her face with a closed fist. Sally said that the defendant punched her in that way more than twice, and that her attempts to explain that she did not want to sleep with the man of the defendant’s age only made the defendant become more angry: T 59. 9 – 39.

106. When they arrived at the Pitt Street home, and Sally was near the front door, the defendant was “growling” at her. He continued to accuse her of wanting to sleep with the man and he again struck her. Sally gave the following evidence of that time (at T 59. 49 – 50):

Q. Closed fist? Open fist? Open hand? Can you recall?

A. I cannot recall, sorry.

107. Plainly had Sally been exaggerating her evidence or seeking revenge against her father, the defendant, in some way, she could have answered that the punch at the house door was closed fist. She remembered standing near the wall which attached to the door frame, fearful that the defendant was going to slam her head into the wall “because I’d seen him do that in the past, to my mum. I was conscious of that”: T 60. 5.

108. Mary’s evidence of Sally being punched by her father when visiting the Three Sisters lookout at the Blue Mountains was consistent with the evidence of Pauline and Sally. She did not recall where in the Blue Mountains it occurred but she recalled there were a lot of tourists and people taking photos. She thought it was possibly at the Three Sisters location. Mary was then in year 5. She recalled that the defendant became angry at the way that Sally had been talking to an older man when using her disposable camera. She recalled that when getting in the car she saw the defendant punching Sally in the face numerous times with a closed fist and she recalled the defendant throwing the sweets out of the car.

Count 1: between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Sally-section 61 Crimes act 1900.

109. Pauline was then asked about an incident in 2008. This allegation is the subject of Count 1: between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Sally-section 61 Crimes act 1900.

110. Pauline said that the defendant became angry because Sally asked him, whilst they were in the presence of her friend Laura, for permission to go to Laura’s house to study Drama. Sally and Laura were then attending year 10, in the last year of their high school Drama subject. Pauline said that although the defendant agreed, he was upset because Sally had asked him in front of Laura, whilst in car, and not “to the side”, meaning privately. She said that the defendant’s face showed that he was upset. He insisted and Pauline complied, that she also attend Laura’s house to keep watch. On the return of Pauline and Sally to the Pitt Street home, the defendant said that he was upset also because Laura had an older brother in the house.

111. The alleged offence took place at home when Sally had gone to a bathroom for a shower. She was then 16 years of age. Pauline said the defendant broke the bathroom door lock by smashing it open and entered the bathroom. When Pauline heard screaming she ran into the bathroom and saw Sally in the shower with the curtain wrapped around herself and the water running. Her evidence was that the defendant was punching Sally and that he pushed her head into the wall whilst calling her “slut” and saying “I’m going to kill you”. The defendant said to Pauline “get out or I’ll cut her up”. These statements by the defendant are the subject of Count 2: between 30 September 2008 and 1 November 2008, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm: section 13 (1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. This caused Pauline to leave the bathroom whilst asking the defendant to stop. When the defendant did leave the bathroom he pushed Sarah who was standing in the vicinity of the doorway, into the wall of the corridor.

112. There is no charge, the subject of which, is the defendant pushing or throwing Sara into the wall of the corridor.

113. Sally gave consistent but not identical evidence to Pauline in relation to the Count 1 offence. She said that in addition to the defendant being angry with her, because she had asked him if she could go to Laura’s house for study whilst in the presence of Laura, he also accused her of wanting to go to Laura’s house not to study but to sleep with her older brother. That brother was 10 years older than Sally and Laura. Then things died down and she thought that she was okay to go and have a shower. Inconsistently with the recollection of Pauline, Sally said that she had not turned the water on when the bathroom door flung open. She had locked it. She remembered the door hitting against the frame of the shower and the defendant barging in. He pulled the shower curtain down, ripping it off the hooks. Sally was a 16 year old girl standing in front of her father naked. She was embarrassed and tried to cover her body with the shower curtain. At this point in her evidence (T 60. 45) Sally was so upset that I directed a short adjournment in order for her to have an opportunity to compose herself. On recommencement, Sally gave the following evidence: T 61. 36 – 62. 4.

Q. Now what happened after that?

A. I grabbed the shower curtain to try and cover myself. But he grabbed my head with both hands and was yelling at me about the incident earlier that day where he believed that I didn’t want to go to my friend’s house to study but in fact to sleep with her brother. And slammed my head on – against the tiles in the shower, the – the wall that’s tiled. He proceeded to punch me in the face multiple times while yelling at me. He pulled my hair. I was not able to block any of the punches..(not transcribable)..shower curtain up to cover my body and I was just begging him, like, “Dad, please let me put on some clothes and then I’ll come out.” But he was just yelling at me and would not listen to anything I was saying.

I remember mum coming behind him. I don’t know, she was saying something to him, trying to – it looked like she was trying to pull him away. And then he told her to get the eff out otherwise he was going to kill me, that he was going to cut me up and, you know? So I know that she had to leave the room and he continued. I – I don’t even know for how long, until eventually thankfully he stopped.

114. Mary’s evidence of this event commenced from the return of Pauline, the defendant and Sally from Laura’s house. Her evidence is consistent with the evidence of Pauline and Sally. Including the defendant arguing with Sally, calming down, and then Sally going to a shower, the defendant banging the door to break the lock to the bathroom and screaming. She heard the noise of the defendant ripping the shower curtain down and she saw the defendant punching Sally in the face and slamming Sally’s head into the wall. She described herself and her siblings begging the defendant to stop. The balance of her evidence concerning Pauline entering the bathroom, the defendant sending her out, noises and the closed door and then Pauline re-entering the bathroom and the defendant coming to the hallway are all consistent with the evidence of Pauline and Sally. She recalled that when the defendant came to the hallway he grabbed Sara and threw her whole body into the wall. Sara was then in primary school and about 6 years of age. She recalled her sister Sally being punched in the bathroom saying to the defendant “stop; stop” and asking that he let her put clothes on because she was naked.

115. Sara’s evidence of this event is consistent with that of Pauline, Sally and Mary. She recalled how angry the defendant was when they got home after the defendant picked up Pauline and Sally from Laura’s house. She recalled the defendant screaming and banging down the door when Sally was in the shower, that Sally was naked and that the defendant hit her with a closed fist and slammed her head into the shower wall. She recalled Sally trying to cover herself with the shower curtain and that they were all screaming at the defendant to stop. She was 7 years old at the time. She said that when the defendant came out of the door he slammed her head and shoulders into the wall of the corridor. During examination in chief she said that she did not consent to the defendant doing that to her.

116. Pauline then gave evidence of an event in 2010, at about the time of Sally’s year 12 trial High School Certificate exams, when Sally skipped school to attend McDonald’s with two friends. One friend was male and the other female. The event which ensured is the subject of four counts.

Count 3 between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010 at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending her to fear physical or mental harm-section 13 (1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007; and

Count 4 between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did assault Sally-section 61 Crimes Act 1900.

117. Having been notified of Sally’s absence by the school, the defendant with Pauline drove to the McDonald’s store to retrieve her. They then continued to the school to pick up Mary.

118. Pauline went into the school to retrieve Mary. This left Sally and the defendant at the car. When she returned the defendant was hitting Sally with an open hand and also with a closed fist. Pauline and Mary tried to stop the defendant but he continued to hit Sally until he chose to stop. Whilst driving to pick up the younger children from their school the defendant said to Sally “I’m going to kill you”.

119. Again Sally’s evidence was consistent with that of Pauline in relation to both of the Count 3 and Count 4 events and again Sally gave a more detailed description. She said that when Pauline left the car to retrieve Mary, the defendant got out of his front drivers seat and opened the side sliding door to her. She was sitting in the back row of the (people transporter type) car and he started yelling at her about a lady from MacDonald’s having told him that Sally had entered a car with a bunch of boys. Sally denied that happened. The defendant lent into the car, yelling at her. Sally lent forward trying to explain that she was just with her friends at MacDonald’s. At that point the defendant punched her in the side of her face with a closed fist. She gave the following further description of the assault (T 63. 29 - 31)

“I flinched back and then he told me not to flinch and to come forward and if I move back, he was going to kill me. So, I had to hold my face forward while he leant in from the side of the car to punch me on both sides of my face.”

120. Sally was obviously distressed when she gave this evidence. The manner in which she gave it and the description itself, struck me as accurately based in an emotionally most painful recollection. She continued to say that the defendant called her a “slut” and told her not to look at him. Because she could not look at him she could not anticipate the punches as they came toward her. She felt “disgusting” physically and emotionally hurt. She described having to fight the urge to move back in order to protect herself from the punches. She remembered that the defendant was still at the side door punching her when Pauline returned to the car with Mary. That evidence necessarily infers, at the least, that the assault lasted for minutes. That part of evidence also corroborates that Pauline witnessed the punching.

121. Mary said that she was at the same school as Sally and the evidence she gave of her recollection of this event is consistent with the evidence of Pauline and Sally. She recalled that when she was picked up at school Pauline told her that the defendant was angry and when they reached the car, the defendant was outside of the car, where she saw his body lunge into the car. On seeing that she and Pauline ran to the car where she said she saw Sally to be shaking and crying. Mary did not give evidence of the defendant punching Sally at the car.

Count 5 – between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did threaten to use an offensive instrument, namely a shaver, with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation – s 33B(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900

Count 6 - between 31 August 2010 and 1 October 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales did intimidate Sally with intent to cause her to fear physical or mental harm – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

122. Sally said that after having returned to the Pitt Street home from MacDonald’s and the school the defendant told Sally to sit on the couch and that he was going to deal with her. He told Pauline and the children to get out of the house and go to the backyard. Sally said she was “really scared because I thought he was going to kill me” (T 65. 13). The defendant went away for a moment but returned with an electric shaving razor which he waved in front of Sally’s face whilst yelling at her, calling her a “slut” for jumping in the car with the boys which event had not actually happened. When Sally again tried to tell the defendant that it had not happened, he held the razor between her eye and her hairline and near to her eye. Sally said she was shaking because she was so scared. The defendant threatened to shave her hair off so that no boys would look at her. Sally was then 18 years of age.

122. Mary remembered seeing the defendant punch Sally with closed fists in the face when they were in the lounge room of the Pitt Street home and that he made her take her younger siblings into the backyard. When in the backyard she stood at the door (referred to as the “flyscreen”) and she could hear her sister crying and could hear the hitting noises and could hear Pauline saying “stop, please stop”. She was scared for Sally so at some point she ran inside where she saw Sally sitting on the couch and the defendant standing over her. She saw he had an electric shaver turned on and positioned “right near her eye”: T 166. 9. It was at that time the defendant said to Sally “I’m going to shave your head off you fucking slut, and kill you.”

123. Sally was unable to return to school anytime that week because of the bruising and swelling to her face. She described it as “puffy, greenish in spots” and that it really hurt to touch as well as being visibly swollen. The defendant said that he did not want her to go to school because he did not want others to know what had happened.

Count 7 – on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sally intending to cause her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Count 8 - on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Mary with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm - s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Count 9 - on 22 November 2010, at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did assault Pauline - s 61 Crimes Act 1900

125. Sally recalled that for the defendant’s birthday on the 22nd of November 2010 the family had baked him a cake which they presented to him on a silver tray. She recalled the effort in creating the cake and that it had cream and strawberries. They sang Happy Birthday. She said that the defendant was not happy that they had made the cake rather than buying one.

126. At the time the defendant was the only licenced motor vehicle driver in the family. Pauline has never held a driver’s licence. Pauline said that the defendant would not let her. When asked during evidence in chief how he stopped her; she simply stated that he just drove whenever they went out, even if they drove to go shopping although the defendant did the grocery shopping. Whenever the children were to be taken out or picked up, the defendant drove. Pauline possessed a bankcard in her name but the defendant held it. The defendant gave her the estimated cash needed for purchases. On 22 November 2019 Sally was on her learner’s permit. So no one in the family other than the defendant himself could drive to the shop to buy him a cake.

127. Sally said that the family were disheartened when he said words to the effect of “What, aren’t I worth a proper cake, this is the shit you’ve given me?”: T 83. 50. The defendant then took Pauline to the office and Sally could heard arguing. She said that she and her siblings, would listen when they were arguing because of concern that the defendant would physically attack Pauline: T 84. 10. On this occasion Sally heard the argument to be about the defendant’s perennial allegation of Pauline’s alleged infidelity.

128. Sally said that when the defendants voice became intense and aggressive she and Mary went into the office. Sally said “Dad, please stop”. The defendant replied, “Get the fuck out or I’ll shoot you”. She did not want to anger the defendant more because she was aware that the rifle was in that room in the Jesus cupboard. She and Mary left the office.

129. Mary’s recollection of this event was consistent with the evidence of Sally as to the complaint that they had not bought him a cake and Pauline and the defendant going into the office. She then heard what she called “hitting” and ran with Sally into the room. She recalls that the defendant was holding Pauline by both shoulders and that he said “get the fuck out or else I will shoot you”. Like Sally, Mary said that she left being mindful that guns were in the room.

Sequence 45 - s166 assault Sara November 2011 by slamming her head into a window and punching Sara because Peter and Mary squabbled with Sally over scissors cutting tablecloth

130. In her DVEC, Sara recalled this event but not when it occurred. Her younger siblings were playing with a tablecloth as if to cut it. She told them to stop what they were doing because it would ruin the table cloth. The defendant thought that she was participating in cutting the tablecloth. He came in and pushed her head – she said “on the glass” and he punched her in the face. Her younger siblings were all screaming for him to stop and he “just kept going”.

131. Ann’s evidence is consistent with Sara’s evidence that, she and Peter were sitting at the dining table cutting the tablecloth when Sara yelled at them to stop. Having heard that, the defendant came in yelling and was angry because Sara had yelled at Peter and Ann. The defendant then “slammed her head into the window behind her”: T 241. 16. Ann recalled that the window cracked from the force of Sara’s head being forced into it.

132. Peter also gave evidence of his recollection of this event. Peter said that he and Ann were cutting a tablecloth and Sara argued with them to stop, following which the defendant came in and Sara tried to explain. Peter said that the defendant “slammed” Sara’s head into a window which “cracked a little bit”.

Pauline’s attempted suicide

133. On 23 January 2014 Pauline attempted suicide at the Pitt Street home. She and the defendant had been arguing whilst sitting outside in the backyard. Their children were viewing them from a window of the house because of their concern to protect Pauline from the defendant. Pauline said that she got to the point where she thought “enough is enough”. She went into her bedroom and obtained a bottle Valium, asked Sally to get her a glass of water whilst not revealing to Sally the purpose, went to the bathroom; closed the door and deliberately consumed an overdose of Valium tablets. She returned to the backyard.

134. Her children noticed her head tilt to the side. There is some inconsistency in the evidence between the childrens’ evidence that she then slumped to the ground and the recorded 000 call (Exhibit L) in which she was described by Sally to have been still in a chair and on instruction of the 000 operator, she was placed on the ground. This was not investigated by examination in chief or in cross examination. I therefore make nothing of it. The 000 call recording is otherwise entirely consistent with the evidence of Sally, Peter and Mary as well as the evidence of Pauline that she was unconscious due to the effects of the overdose.

135. The overwhelming evidence is of Pauline taking the overdose and requiring emergency ambulance assistance. Not surprisingly, Pauline’s own evidence was short. She said that she blacked out and “I don’t remember anything”. She then said that when she awoke the defendant told her to tell the doctors that she had had an argument with her family and was upset with her family: T 35. 49 - 50. Pauline said that she tried to commit suicide because she was so tired of the life she was living with the defendant. Exhibit D is the Westmead Hospital patient health record of the relevant 4 day admission between 23 and 26 January 2014 inclusive.

136. Sally said that throughout Pauline’s lapsing state of consciousness whilst she was sitting in the backyard on the chair, the defendant said words to the effect that Pauline was “just putting it on”. That this was his response to Sally’s suggestion to him that they call an ambulance. She recalled the defendant saying “she’ll just sleep it off. Don’t worry”. But when the defendant went inside Sally called Michael and asked what to do, given that the defendant had told her not to call an ambulance. On Michael’s assurance that she should, Sally dialled 000. When she told the defendant, he “gave the dirtiest look”: T 85. 15 – 45. As did each of her siblings, Sally said that whilst Pauline was in hospital, the defendant would not let them see her. Unlike her siblings, Sally said that the defendant did take them “for a couple of minutes” to visit their mother in hospital. Sally recalled that prior to the arrival of the ambulance, the defendant told her and her siblings who were present, that when the ambulance arrived, “…not to say anything”. Sally recalls that she heard the defendant saying that to Mary whilst Sally was on the 000 call.

137. Mary recalled looking through the window “spying” into the backyard at the defendant and Pauline and that she could hear the defendant shouting. She said his knee was shaking. She recalled that Pauline went to the bedroom and took a white container from the cupboard. Mary asked her about it and Pauline answered “nothing”. Pauline then entered the bathroom and shut the door. Mary said she had suspicions because the defendant had always told Pauline to kill herself. Pauline returned to the backyard and as Mary looked through the window Mary saw Pauline’s head drop to one side. When Mary was outside, Sally talked of calling the ambulance and the defendant told them to go inside but they did not. She said Pauline dropped to the floor from the green plastic chair. Again I note this is not entirely consistent with the 000 call record but it is consistent with the evidence given by Sally. Mary’s evidence was consistent with Sally’s evidence of the defendant saying that Pauline was only pretending and that it was when he went inside that Sally telephoned the ambulance. Mary added the detail that when he returned outside and saw that Sally was on the phone he marched up to her with a fist and when Mary told the defendant that the ambulance was being called, the defendant said that Sally “should not have fucking called” she also recalled the defendant telling her siblings that they were to tell the ambulance officers that Pauline had become upset because she had argued with her parents and not to say that he and Pauline had argued. Mary said that she agreed because the defendant had always said he would kill himself and all of them if they told third parties and that he would know because of his police and military connections. A detail added by Mary to the evidence of Pauline and Sally, was that she recalled the defendant saying (T 174. 23) “if Peter stresses over this and gets sick, I will kill her”, meaning Pauline. At the time, Peter was unwell.

138. Ann’s evidence was consistent with that given by Pauline, Sally and Mary including of Pauline having locked herself in the bathroom and asked Sara for water before going to her bedroom and returning to the bathroom. Ann recalled Sally asking at the bathroom door if Pauline was alright. The defendant called Pauline and Pauline returned from the bathroom to the backyard with the defendant. Ann recalled looking through the blinds and seeing Pauline’s head tilt to the side. She recalled Sally running out to see what had happened. She did not recall what happened between then and the ambulance arriving, save for the defendant telling herself and her siblings that they were not to say anything to the ambulance officers. She recalled being very afraid because she was so young and that “no-one really told me what was happening, so all I saw was mum going into the ambulance”: T 242. 37. As did her siblings Ann said in evidence that when Pauline was in hospital the defendant would not allow them to go in an visit her (save for the evidence of Sally)

139. Peter’s evidence of this event having occurred on an occasion in January 2014 when the defendant and Pauline were arguing outside, was consistent with the evidence given by Pauline, Sally, Mary and Ann. Peter said that Pauline was in the bathroom for a very long time. Then he heard Sally say that Pauline had tried to kill herself. Peter’s evidence was consistent with the evidence of Mary that when Pauline was being wheeled into the ambulance the defendant said to Mary “if Peter gets sick I’m going to kill her” because Peter was stressed. Peter said that at the time he was suffering a thyroglossal cyst which he understood to be stress caused. He said that Pauline was away in hospital for several days and that the defendant did not permit Peter to visit her.

140. Michael corroborated Sally’s evidence of receipt of her call informing him that Pauline had collapsed and his telling her to call someone or he would so that an ambulance would attend. He was working at Woolworths and took leave to attend the Pitt Street home. On his arrival the defendant and Pauline were absent, but the siblings were all shocked and crying. They were scared as to what would eventuate as to Pauline.

Count 10 – between 31 December 2013 and 1 January 2015 at Merrylands in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Sara intending that she fear physical or mental harm – s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

141. Sally said that about the time Mary was to start university in 2014, in the kitchen of the Pitt Street home and after Pauline and the defendant had returned from shopping for underwear for Peter, they were arguing. The defendant was accusing Pauline of looking at the male models pictured on the underwear packets. He was saying to her, words to the effect of “you got turned on by looking at the pictures, didn’t you?”. Pauline assured the defendant that she did not. Sally said that the defendant punched Pauline, pointed his finger in her face and slapped her whilst Mary and Sara were also in the kitchen: T 83. 15 – 20. Mary or Sara called out “Dad stop” and the defendant turned to them and said “Shut the fuck up or I’ll cut you up and feed you to the pigs.” The defendant continued the argument with Pauline. Afterward, Sally noticed that Pauline’s face was swollen.

142. Mary gave evidence consistent with that of Sally concerning this event of the defendant punching Pauline in the face and shouting at her to accuse her of looking at the male model pictures on the underwear packing after their return from the shops. She recalled herself and her siblings begging the defendant to stop and recalled the defendant saying “I will light her on fire”, meaning Pauline: T 173. 1. Sara was crying and begging the defendant to stop and the defendant said to Sara “shut up – I will chop you up and feed you to the pigs”: T 173. 5. Mary was very scared for Pauline and for Sara, she said because “I guess, [the defendant] went into a lot of detail as to how he would kill them.”: T 173. 9.

143. Ann’s evidence of this event is consistent of that with Sally and of Mary. She recalled that when she was about 8 years old and Peter was about 4 years older, his parents returned from shopping for his underwear. She recalled that when they got home the defendant believed that Pauline had been looking at the male models on the packaging. Consistent with her frank and honest evidence giving, Ann said that she was not in the same room. But she could hear the defendant threaten to light Pauline on fire. She was scared for her mother Pauline’s life. She hid the lighters or anything that the defendant could use to hurt Pauline. She thinks Sara might have tried to intervene and she heard the defendant threaten Sara saying he would “feed her to the pigs”.

January 2013 - Sequence 1 – defendant assault Pauline – by slapping her and Sequence 2 – defendant - assault Sara by slapping her after accusing Pauline of looking at male swimmers at the pool; and Sequence 3 – defendant intimidate Sara by saying “if you call the cops, I will slam you head against the wall”.

144. Exhibit C is a statement by Dr Alagan GP concerning her consultation with Pauline on 19 February 2013. The statement was admitted without objection. Dr Alagan was not called to give evidence. Pauline could not recall the date of her attendance upon her GP, Dr Alagan at Merrylands. Dr Alagan wrote that bruises to Pauline’s face and right eye were consistent with the history Pauline gave of an event of being robbed that day. The statement records that Pauline presented for consultation with the defendant. Pauline did recall that she attended Dr Alagan, but Pauline could not recall the ailment for which she saw her: T 29. 13. Pauline remembered telling Dr Alagan that she had been robbed by Sudanese at Merrylands, which story was not true. She recalled that she had sustained an injury because the defendant “had bashed me” (T 29. 19) but could not recall what injury it was.

145. That Pauline conceded that she could not recall what the injury was when she saw Dr Alagan more than 9 years before this special hearing is an instance of her responsibly giving evidence of only those things which she did recall. It is an instance of her, as she presented in the Courtroom to be, being a witness focusing on the questions and in calm voice, giving the best most accurate answer she could. That she did not recall the particular injury is consistent with the measure of her evidence that she having suffered multiple injuries at the hand of the defendant over time. Pauline did recall that the defendant was in the Doctors room during the consultation. She said that he had told her to tell the doctor that she had been robbed. That Dr Algan treated bruising consistent with injury suffered on 19 February 2013, is not evidence of a specific act of assault in January 2013.

146. Pauline did not give direct evidence of this event. Mary recalled that when in early 2013 and she was about to enter her final year of school, having started the year 12 syllabus the year before, on a hot day of the school holidays the family went to a public swimming pool, when the defendant accused Pauline of looking at a male person, who she described as looking like “The Pacifier”, a character acted by Vin Diesel. Mary and Sally went to Church of Our Lady of Lebanon at Harris Park and after Mass when they looked at their phones, they saw what she estimated to be about 20 missed calls from the defendant’s phone number to each of their phones; T 168. 13. When they called their father, he said that the call was by accident and that everything was okay and when they asked if they could stop for sweets on the way home, he said that they could. When they arrived at the Pitt Street home, Pauline, Sara and Peter told Sally and Mary that whilst they were in church, the defendant had bashed Pauline and their siblings because of the “Vin Diezel” event. Mary said that Sara explained that it was she who had called using the defendant’s phone and at a stage when she had been in the family car, the defendant had punched her numerous times in the face because she refused to have a MacDonald’s ice-cream: T 168. 34. Mary remembered the bruises and swelling on the faces and arms of Pauline and Sara.

147. Peter gave consistent evidence with that of Mary identifying the event with the day toward the beginning of 2013 when the family had attended the Parramatta Swimming Pools. He said that he and Sara attended the office because they had heard “slapping sounds”. There he saw the defendant “repeatedly slapping my mum, hard as well. He slaps her loud”: T 253. 45 He frankly stated that he could not recall what the defendant said at that time: T 253. 46 – 254. 9. He recalled that whilst he and Sara were looking into the study, from “a spot” in the kitchen Sara retrieved the defendant’s phone which was in the kitchen and called Sally and Mary. When the defendant realised that they were calling someone, “he thought we were calling the police. So he stormed in” and to Sara said “call the police and I’ll kill you.”: T 254. 30. Peter gave the following evidence of what then occurred: T 254. 35 - 40

Q. Well, what happened? You were about to say, one thing led to the other, but I need to know what those

A. So, he then proceeded to push Sara towards the couch and started laying into her with his fist closed. When my mother tried to stop him, she ended up on the couch, as well, and he was laying into both of them. I was young, at the time, and I - I wasn't as strong. So, I attempted to jump on his back and pull him off him and I succeeded.

Count 14

406. The Crown case is that on 19 August 2015 the defendant did intimidate Pauline but the only witness to give evidence of such an event was Peter. I exercise caution in receipt of the evidence of this offence given that the complainant Pauline was not asked questions and did not give evidence of it. Indeed, no other member of the family did.

407. Peter said that one week after the birthday of his sister, which was on 12 August 2015, whilst he was in the living room of the house, he heard an argument between the defendant and Pauline in the defendant’s office. He put his ear to the door. Peter was therefore only able to give evidence, as best he could, of what he heard whilst listening through the door. He conceded difficulty recalling what precisely the defendant said to Pauline. Peter’s evidence was given in an obviously truthful and frank manner. This is particularly clear from his concession that he could not recall precisely whether the defendant had said “I’ll kill you” or “I’ll shoot you” before in later evidence he affirmed to “I’ll shoot you”. I accept that he truthfully believed he heard a threat by the defendant to Pauline in words to the effect that the defendant would shoot her. This is corroborated by Peter’s reaction of hiding the ammunition magazines. However, given the caution which I have described and in the circumstances of Peter’s conceded uncertainty as to precisely the words used; I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 19 August 2015 the defendant intimidated Pauline with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm by speaking a threat to kill her. I find the defendant not guilty on Count 14.

Count 15/Count 16/Count 17

408. I deal with the evidence of counts 15, 16 and 17 simultaneously, because they arise out of a single occasion. However, I consider the evidence separately in my determination of my verdict in relation to each Count.

409. Pauline and Mary gave credible and consistent evidence of the subject events on 16 August 2016. There was no evidence to the contrary.

410. Mary remembered that timing because it was 4 days after her 21st birthday on 12 August 2016. Pauline said that on that date, on return from Merrylands shops, whilst the defendant was driving the car, he punched her in the face both by a left backhand slap and by a closed left hand fist. On arrival at the Pitt Street driveway, Pauline got out of the car and ran to escape the defendant but at a distance of about four properties he reached her and dragged her back to the home, by applying a brace type hold around her neck. Having dragged her into the kitchen, the defendant took a butchers knife and held it to Pauline’s neck. Mary heard the noise, ran to the kitchen and saw the defendant do that. He dropped the knife when Mary screamed. Mary recalled that Pauline was gasping and Pauline said she fell to the ground. Mary saw a mark on Pauline’s neck and recalled Pauline saying to her that the defendant had forgotten Mary was home, otherwise he would have killed her. A contemporaneous and documentary evidence of Count 15 is Mary’s text message to her boyfriend Vikram at 9:54 am which stated “He had a knife against her”.

411. In relation to Count 15, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant used the butchers knife, being an ordinarily dangerous weapon and a thing which he adapted for offensive purposes and a thing which he intentionally used to threaten and for offensive purposes and did so with the intention of committing an indictable offence being intimidation of Pauline with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm: s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. Whilst it is not an element of the offence I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm.

412. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 15 offence.

413. In relation to Count 16, the Crown case included that the defendant said to Pauline that he was going to kill her, whilst in the kitchen holding the knife against her throat. Neither Pauline nor Mary gave evidence of the defendant speaking that threat whilst in the kitchen. I find the defendant not guilty of Count 16.

414. In relation to Count 17, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately punched Pauline, slapped Pauline, dragged her in a neck brace type hold, in addition to placing the butchers knife to her throat and that Pauline did not consent to the application of any of such force.

415. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 17 offence.

Sequence 10/Sequence 11

416. It is convenient to consider the evidence of these two charges simultaneously because they arise out of the same occasion. However, I consider the evidence separately in my determination of verdict in relation to each charge.

417. On an occasion between April and May 2017 when Michael and Sally were soon to be married, the defendant and Michael were at the driveway of the Pitt Street home. The defendant strongly disapproved of the forthcoming marriage.

418. Evidence which was consistent, although not identical was given by Pauline, Sally, Michael, Mary, Ann and Peter of this event. One would not expect their evidence, if credible to have been identical, not just because of the passage of time since the occurrence of the event but also because they were not all in the same proximity for the whole of the event which transpired between the defendant, Michael and Sally.

419. Pauline, Sally, Michael and Mary all gave evidence that the defendant spoke words to the effect of threats to kill Michael. The evidence of the witnesses was credible and struck me as given by each of them truthfully and accurately to the best of their recollection. There is no evidence to the contrary. The evidence was that whilst Sally and Michael were attempting to appease the defendant, Michael inviting him to enter the house to talk, the defendant grabbed Sally with both of his hands to her bicep region of each of her arms, quite hard and Sally protested that he was hurting her.

420. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that amongst the defendant’s numerous threats to kill Michael, at one stage he said words to the effect that if Michael touched him he would kill Michael.

421. In relation to Sequence 10, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant intimidated Michael with the intention of causing Michael to fear physical or mental harm. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 10 offence.

422. In relation to Sequence 11, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied physical force in the form of a hard grab to each of Sally’s arms at about the bicep level, causing her pain and that Sally did not consent to the application of such force, indeed she protested to the defendant to stop because he was hurting her.

423. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 11 offence.

Count 18

424. Pauline, Sally and Michael each gave credible, consistent evidence of this event. There was no evidence to the contrary. There is no dispute, of the nexus to the contemporaneous record of Dr Bui, dentist made 27 October 2017 that Pauline suffered an injury to her lip and to her front teeth on that day.

425. Pauline said that during an argument in the car and whilst the defendant was driving, she turned to look at him and he punched her straight in the face causing what she thought was broken front teeth. Her mouth was bleeding. He lips swelled. Dr Bui’s note is consistent, not with a finding of broken teeth but with a force applied to her front teeth. Pauline lied to Dr Bui, telling him that she had fallen over. Sally recalled that she saw Pauline’s face was puffy and she was speaking as if there was something wrong with her mouth. Pauline showed Sally the little cut on her top lip and told Sally that the defendant had punched her in the face earlier. Sally’s evidence of that complaint by Pauline was admissible pursuant to s 66(2) Evidence Act as evidence of the truth of Pauline’s complaint. Michael gave evidence of having made the same observations of Pauline’s lip and teeth at the same time as as did Sally. He mentioned also a bruise on Pauline’s chin and recalled Pauline’s expression of concern as to what persons, particularly Detective Sergeant Kylie Whiting might think if they saw her appearance.

426. On the whole of the evidence I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 October 2017, the defendant deliberately punched Pauline on her face in the vicinity of her mouth and as a consequence of that punch, Pauline suffered a cut lip and soreness to her two upper incisors (central) teeth, without looseness being a hurt and injury that interfered with her health and comfort within the meaning of “actual bodily harm” under s 59 Crimes Act. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did not consent to the application of such force.

427. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 18 offence.

Count 19

428. All members of the defendant’s family, except himself and Sally gave credible and consistent evidence of this event which occurred while the family were watching New Years Eve fireworks on television between 31 December 2017 and 1 January 2019. Sally did not give evidence because she was not present.

429. The defendant had turned on the lights in the house. He did so thinking it would bring good luck. Unaware that the defendant had done so, Peter turned off the lights in the television room so that the family could better view the fireworks on the television. Peter’s action triggered the defendant to start shouting that the family had ruined the year, that the lights should not have been turned off and he threatened to shoot them all. They were aware that the defendant kept a rifle in a cupboard of the home.

430. There was no evidence to the contrary.

431. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on New Years Eve 2017 or 2018, the defendant intimidated Pauline by speaking the threat to shoot the family and did so with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, from Pauline’s evidence of her fear caused by the defendant’s threat combined with her knowledge that he kept a rifle in the cupboard, that she did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm.

432. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 19 offence.

Count 20

433. Peter and Mary gave credible and consistent evidence of this event. There is no evidence to the contrary.

434. The circumstances were that during the school and university holidays in January 2019, when the defendant told Peter to stop playing the PlayStation, Peter agreed but when doing so asked the defendant why he was “getting mad” meaning angry. The defendant took Peter’s statement as an insult of the effect that he was mentally affected. The defendant positioned himself over Peter and in front of Peter who reacted by “got up in his face” and saying to the defendant “then do something”. Mary’s evidence was that the defendant had spoken words that he was going to “hit” Peter before Peter invited the defendant to “do something”. The essential fact for the offence and a fact upon which their evidence was consistent, is that the defendant when storming off stated words to the effect “I’ll just shoot you”.

435. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that by speaking the threat to shoot him, the defendant intimidated Peter with the intention of causing Peter to fear physical or mental harm.

436. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 20 offence.

Sequence 17/Sequence 18

437. It is convenient to consider the evidence of Sequence 17 and Sequence 18 simultaneously given the offences arise out of the same event. Sara, Mary and Peter gave evidence which was consistent of this event. Sara’s evidence was in her recorded interview with police. In Court Sara was not asked questions of the event and did not give further evidence of the event. The evidence of each of Sara, Mary and Peter was credible. There was no evidence to the contrary.

438. The defendant’s threat, the subject of the Crown’s case on intimidation in Count 17, was recorded by Peter’s friend Mr Khoudair on the PlayStation which they were playing at the time: Exhibit H. The time of the recording was 7:24 pm on 27 March 2019.

439. Sara and Mary described the defendant having grabbed Sara’s arms and slammed her head into a wall. In her recorded evidence, Sara also said that the defendant was shaking her head. Mary saw the defendant grab Sara’s arms.

440. Mary and Peter said that Peter, on becoming aware of what was going on around him whilst playing the PlayStation game, having a earmuff over only one ear, tried to intervene to protect his sister Sara. Peter pushed the defendant onto the couch.

441. In the Exhibit H recording, the defendant is heard threatening Sara that he would “send” her head into the wall and that if she called the police he would “send” her head into the wall. In his rage he called Peter a “sick dog”. Sara is heard asking the defendant to stop touching her.

442. In relation to Sequence 17, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 March 2019 the defendant intimidated Sara with the intention of causing Sara to fear physical or mental harm by aggressively shouting to her that if she called the police, he would slam her head into the wall. Whilst not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Sara did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm. Indeed, Sara told police that she believed the defendant would harm her such as by cutting her up and feeding her to the pigs.

443. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 17 offence.

444. In relation to Sequence 18 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant grabbed Sara’s arms, causing her to cry. Whilst mindful that Peter said that he heard a bang, when his attention was on the PlayStation game, and aware that Mary did not give evidence describing the defendant actually causing Sara’s head to contact the wall; nevertheless, on the whole of that evidence I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that as described by Mary to police, the defendant did grab Sara’s head and slam it on the wall and shake it.

445. Mary gave truthful and reliable evidence. It is not necessarily the case that she saw all that occurred. She was not asked in evidence to explain her opportunity to view the whole of the scene or when her attention was first directed toward it.

446. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant deliberately applied physical force by grabbing Sara’s arm and by slamming Sara’s head into the wall and shaking Sara. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Sara did not consent to the application of such force.

447. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Sequence 18 offence.

Count 21

448. Peter was the only witness of this event. He gave credible, albeit brief evidence. There is no evidence to the contrary. The context evidence is convincing that the specific act prosecuted would not be “out of the blue” incident. Peter said that in June 2019 when the defendant found a note written by Pauline for Peter to take to school, the defendant approached Peter in the living room of the Beechwood Avenue home and denied ever laying a hand on Peter. When he said this, Peter was sitting on the couch, and the defendant lifted his right hand, palm open, as if to slap Peter. It is, on the prosecution case, that at about this time the defendant intimidated Peter by speaking a threat to shoot him. Peter conceded that he did not have a clear recollection of either the event or the words that the defendant spoke. Peter said that he remembered the effect of the words the defendant spoke to be either that the defendant would hurt him or shoot him.

449. In the circumstances of Peter being the only witness and his recollection truthfully stated of what was said by the defendant to be imprecise, if not unreliable as to accuracy; I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant spoke the threat to shoot Peter upon which the Crown relied. In relation to Count 21, I find the defendant not guilty.

Count 22/Count 23/Count 24

450. The Crown opened in relation to these counts as if they occurred in close proximity of time on 29 July 2019 (MFI 2 [137] – [144]). Count 22, was prosecuted as the defendant having intimidated Pauline by “at one point in the incident” of him preventing her from leaving the bedroom, when he said to her words to the effect “you should kill yourself otherwise I’m going to kill you” and “during the incident” when a sewing kit including a pair of scissors was on the table in front of Pauline, the defendant said to her words to the effect that he wanted to grab the scissors and put it in her neck whilst saying “I should have killed you in the morning instead of telling you to sleep”. The Crown opened on Count 23 describing it as the defendant having shoved Pauline back and her head hitting the wall when she tried to leave the bedroom and then his holding her and shaking her. The Crown opened on Count 24 describing an event in the argument between Pauline and the defendant when Mary attempted to intervene at about the time the defendant shoved Pauline’s head into the wall, the defendant threatened that he was going to kill Mary who then left because she was very scared as a consequence of the threat.

451. The evidence in the hearing of 29 July 2019 described separate events in time on that day, rather than, as I understood the Crown’s opening to be, having occurred during a single occasion on that day.

452. Each of Pauline, Mary, Sara and Ann gave evidence of those events. There is no inconsistency of significance in their evidence. Their evidence was credible. There was no evidence to the contrary.

453. In her recorded police interview, Mary said that on the morning of 29 July 2019 she heard the defendant making threats to Pauline including that if she did not leave he was going to hurt her and that it was better that she leave instead of him hurting her in front of the children. The defendant and Pauline then took the younger children to school. Pauline and Mary gave evidence of events which commenced on the return of the defendant and Pauline to the home sometime around 9:30 am. On the whole of the evidence, the defendant trapped Pauline in the bedroom by his standing in the open doorway, not letting her leave whilst he was hitting her as she stood up against the wall. Mary’s more specific evidence was that the defendant was bridged up against Pauline making threats to kill her and that if she did not kill herself he should kill her. Their evidence was that the defendant placed his open palms on either side of Pauline’s head, squeezed it and pushed it into the wall. Pauline said that it hurt but it did not leave a mark or cause swelling.

454. On Mary’s attempt to intervene, trying to tell the defendant to calm down and let Pauline leave the bedroom to go to the bathroom, the defendant said to Mary to be quiet and that he was going to kill her. At about that point, when Pauline tried to exit the bedroom the defendant grabbed Pauline’s arms and pushed her back against the wall, speaking that she should not kill herself in the house because he could get into trouble and that if she was going to kill herself she should do it somewhere else. On Pauline’s third attempt to escape the bedroom, she went to the bathroom and was vomiting. She and Mary were scared.

450. In her electronically recorded interview with police, Sara gave consistent evidence of her recollection of her parents arguing in the morning before she left for university. She returned at around 9 pm. In order to attempt to protect Pauline from the defendant, she had asked Pauline to help her reading over a university assignment at the dining room table. The defendant then argued again with Pauline when there was a sewing kit including scissors on the table. Sara recounted that the defendant threatened Pauline that he would grab the scissors and put them in her neck. Exhibit J is a recording of passages of the argument occurring on the evening of 29 July 2019, when Sara was able to surreptitiously obtain it and the defendant is heard to scream at Pauline that he would put the scissors in her throat. He is also heard to say that he should have killed Pauline in the morning instead of telling her to go to sleep.

451. Pauline and Ann gave consistent evidence of what would be a third incident in time on 29 July 2019. It was when Ann was sleeping with Pauline because she was experiencing her first menstrual cycle. Pauline was woken by the defendant shaking her on the shoulder. Ann was woken by Pauline’s scream and tapping Ann on her hand. The defendant said that he had experienced a nightmare and had come to Pauline’s bedroom three times to strangle her while she slept. While the defendant and Pauline argued, Ann asked if she and Pauline could go to the bathroom which was a ruse to avoid the defendant’s behaviour. They waited in the bathroom until he had returned downstairs.

452. In relation to Count 22, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant spoke words of threat to Pauline on 29 July 2019 of the effect that she should kill herself and otherwise he should kill her. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 29 July 2019 the defendant intimidated Pauline by speaking those words with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm.

453. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 22 offence.

454. In relation to Count 23, I am satisfied that on 29 July 2019 the defendant grabbed Pauline by both arms, shoved her against the wall and shoved her head into the wall whilst placing his open hands on either side of her head and squeezing it such that she felt pain but that the impact with the wall and squeezing did not leave a mark or swelling. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied that physical force to the body of Pauline and that Pauline did not consent to the application of such force.

455. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 23 offence.

456. In relation to Count 24, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 29 July 2019 the defendant did intimidate Mary by threatening to kill her with the intention of causing Mary to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mary did actually in fact suffer fear of physical or mental harm.

457. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 24 offence.

Count 27/Count 28/Sequence 7/Sequence 8/Sequence 9/Sequence 10/Sequence 11

463. counts 27, 28 and the Sequences 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 charges concern the Ruger Semi-Automatic Rifle, the rifle bag, each ammunition magazine and the rounds of ammunition. There is no real contest as to each of these counts and charges. I have considered the evidence in relation to each count and charge separately.

464. It is common ground that the defendant was the owner and possessor of the rifle, the rifle bag, the magazines and the ammunition which he informed police, was stored at the Beechwood Avenue home on 15 August 2019. The evidence of Pauline, the children and Michael was that the rifle, the rifle bag, the magazines and the ammunition had been at the Pitt Street home as well as in the Beechwood Avenue home. The defendant had never been seen to use the rifle. The defendant never expressly incorporated the use of the rifle in his threats to the family. The family members did associate his threats to shoot them with their knowledge of the existence of the rifle in the home.

465. In addition to the element of possession, each of the elements of prohibited firearm; without authority to do so by licence; the firearm not being registered; the rifle not being kept safely; of the ammunition without licence; authority or permit; of each of the magazines being a prohibited weapon without permit, is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the expert evidence of Senior Constable Hay.

466. After considering the evidence relating to counts 27 and 28 and Sequences 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 separately, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, in relation to each of them, the defendant committed the offence.

Sequence 12/Sequence 13/Sequence 14

467. There is no real contest, that on 28 August 2019, on a legal police search of the Beechwood Avenue home (Exhibit A tab 13A) each of the silver mobile phone taser (Sequence 12), a laser pointer 303 (Sequence 13) and nunchaku also known as Kung Fu Fighting Sticks (Sequence 14) were located.

468. For the reasons already given, there will be a directed verdict of not guilty in relation to Sequence 13. There is no contest of the fact of the defendant’s possession of the silver mobile phone taser the subject of Sequence 12 or of the nunchaku the subject of Sequence 14.

469. Having considered each charge separately, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the expert evidence in the prosecution case that each of the silver mobile phone taser and the nunchaku was a prohibited weapon in regard to which the defendant did not have permit to possess. There is no evidence to the contrary. Again, there is no real contest as to the essential elements of the Sequence 12 and Sequence 14 charges. Having considered each charge separately, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed each of the Sequence 12 and Sequence 14 offences.

Sequence 19/Sequence 20/Sequence 21/Count 25/Count 26

470. Each of Sequences 19 and 20 and counts 25 and 26 concern events which occurred on 15 August 2019. It is efficient to deal with the evidence of that day simultaneously. However, I consider my verdict in relation to each of the charges separately.

471. As already stated, shortly before judgment the Crown conceded that the evidence does not satisfy at the beyond reasonable doubt standard, the Crowns burden of proof of Sequence 21 and for that reason a verdict of not guilty must be entered.

472. The common evidence of Pauline, Mary, Peter and Ann was that throughout the 15th of August 2019, until Pauline escaped from the defendant’s presence by leaving the family car on the afternoon return trip from picking Peter and Ann up at school, the defendant continued to argue with Pauline aggressively.

473. Only Pauline gave evidence of the specific acts prosecuted by the Crown in counts 25 and 26. I found her evidence to be credible. There was no evidence to the contrary.

474. Pauline said that whilst she and the defendant were alone in the family car, a little after 9 am, on the return trip to home from having dropped the youngest children, Peter and Ann at school in Westmead, the defendant said to her “I should kill you for what you’ve done”. This was the subject of the Count 26 intimidation. Pauline asked if they could continue home. The defendant turned and with his hand in a position of palm vertical and fingers at 90 degrees horizontal pushed his fingers in a stabbing motion into the side of Pauline’ neck causing a mark near her Adam’s apple. Pauline said that she suffered pain in her neck and that it made it hard for her to breath. She felt scared, her heart was racing and she moved away from the defendant as much as she could in the car so that he did not have much access. This was the specific act of assault, prosecuted by the Crown in Count 25.

475. Mary said that when she was picked up from university, which on the evidence must have been before 2:30 pm, she saw marks on Pauline’s face. When they arrived home she asked Pauline if the defendant had hit her but Pauline did not answer. At about 2:30 pm the defendant and Pauline left to pick up Peter and Ann from school. At around 3:40 pm, Pauline telephoned Mary to inform her that the defendant had kicked her out of the car and Mary gave evidence of the defendant arriving home, banging the door and screaming “I’m going to kill this bitch”.

476. In relation to Count 25, I am on the evidence of Pauline, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied the physical force of stabbing her in the neck with his fingers, as described by her and as demonstrated by her in her DVEC and that she did not consent to the application of such force.

477. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 25 offence.

478. In relation to Count 26, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence of Pauline alone, that the defendant intimidated Pauline by saying that he should kill her for what she had done, with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm. Whilst it is not an element of the offence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Pauline did actually in fact fear physical or mental harm. That Pauline later in the day made her escape from the defendant was clear evidence of her fear.

479. I am satisfised beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Count 26 offence.

480. The specific acts prosecuted by the Crown in Sequence 19 and Sequence 20 were the subject of evidence of Ann and Peter of what happened in the family car on the return trip from picking them up from school at Westmead up to the point Pauline left the car not to return to the presence of the defendant. There was no evidence to the contrary. Each of them gave credible evidence of the defendant having made contact with Pauline’s chin, the specific act prosecuted by the Crown in relation to Sequence 20. Only Ann, whose evidence was given credibly, gave evidence of the defendant’s threat concerning hitting Pauline in the neck, being the specific act relied upon by the Crown in Sequence 20. Because I was impressed by the evidence of Peter and Ann as witnesses who each conscientiously did their best to truthfully give evidence of what they actually recalled, I found their evidence in relation to Sequences 19 and 20 to be convincing.

481. In relation to Sequence 19, whilst Peter did not give evidence of the defendant making the statement, Ann’s evidence that the defendant spoke to Pauline in words of the effect “don’t make me hit you in the neck Pauline” is corroborated beyond reasonable doubt by a passage of the recording surreptitiously obtained by her in Exhibit K in which the defendant, in heated fashion is heard to shout words including “don’t make me hit you in the neck Pauline”. After exercising the caution earlier indicated, in circumstances of Pauline not having given evidence of the Sequence 19 specific act; I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant on 15 August 2019 spoke those words to Pauline intimidating her and with the intention of causing Pauline to fear physical or mental harm.

482. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the Sequence 19 offence.

483. In relation to the Sequence 20 incident of the defendant making contact with Pauline’s chin, Ann said he “like touched her chin” whereas Peter said that the defendant “aggressively grabbed Pauline’s chin to make her look at him”. Whilst exercising the caution of which I have spoken in circumstances of Pauline not having given evidence of this specific act in relation to Sequence 20; I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deliberately applied the force of taking hold of Pauline’s chin to turn her face toward him and that she did not consent to the application of such force. The event occurred during a heated argument.

484. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 20 Charge.

ORDERS

485. On [H72451736] Sequence 21 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 21 offence.

486. On Count 1 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 1 offence.

487. On Count 2 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 2 offence.

488. On Count 3 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 3 offence.

489. On Count 4 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 4 offence.

490. On Count 5 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 5 offence.

491. On Count 6 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 6 offence.

492. On Count 7 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 7 offence.

493. On Count 8 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 8 offence.

494. On Count 9 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 9 offence.

495. On Sequence 45 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 45 offence.

496. On Count 10 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 10 offence.

497. On Sequence 1 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 1 offence.

498. On Sequence 2 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 2 offence.

499. On Sequence 3 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 3 offence.

500. On Count 11 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 11 offence.

501. On Count 12 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 12 offence.

502. On Count 13 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 13 offence.

503. On Count 14 I find the defendant not guilty.

504. On Count 15 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 15 offence.

505. On Count 16 I find the defendant not guilty.

506. On Count 17 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 17 offence.

507. On Sequence 10 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 10 offence.

508. On Sequence 11 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 11 offence.

509. On Count 18 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 18 offence.

510. On Count 19 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 19 offence.

511. On Count 20 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 20 offence.

512. On Sequence 17 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 17 offence.

513. On Sequence 18 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 18 offence.

514. On Count 21 I find the defendant not guilty.

515. On Count 22 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 22 offence.

516. On Count 23 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 23 offence.

517. On Count 24 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 24 offence.

518. On Count 27 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 27 offence.

519. On Count 28 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 28 offence.

520. On Sequence 7 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 7 offence.

521. On Sequence 8 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 8 offence.

522. On Sequence 9 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 9 offence.

523. On Sequence 10 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 10 offence.

524. On Sequence 11 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 11 offence.

525. On Sequence 12 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 12 offence.

526. On Sequence 13 I find the defendant not guilty.

527. On Sequence 14 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 14 offence.

528. On Sequence 19 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 19 offence.

529. On Sequence 20 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Sequence 20 offence.

530. On [H72032147] Sequence 21 I find the defendant not guilty.

531. On Count 25 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 25 offence.

532. On Count 26 I find beyond reasonable doubt, on the limited evidence available, that the defendant committed the Count 26 offence.

**********

Amendments

26 October 2022 - Grammatical Amendments

Decision last updated: 26 October 2022