STATE OF TASMANIA v CHRISTIAN WILLIAM EDWARDS 1 DECEMBER 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE GEASON J
Mr Edwards you have pleaded guilty to assault. The complainant is your mother.
In October 2021, you lived with your partner, who is your current partner, Tyler Scott, and your newborn son, Lincoln.
On the morning of 13 October 2021 at 11:29am, the complainant sent your partner a message asking if she could see her grandson. Your partner replied at 5:00pm and the pair exchanged messages regarding Lincoln. The messages became heated and the complainant rang you and asked to speak to Ms Scott. You told her she was not home. The complainant rang Ms Scott’s phone, however the phone rang out and she left a voice message saying, “Why don’t you answer your phone, you gutless bitch.”
You rang your mother regarding the voice message. The conversation between you and her began to escalate, and the complainant said to you, “You can get fucked” and terminated the call.
About 30 minutes later, you arrived at her residence in Bridgewater. She answered the door and allowed you to walk into the lounge room. You yelled at her, “don’t threaten my family, don’t threaten my fucking family“.
You placed both hands around her neck and threw her backwards onto the couch where she landed in a seated position. You continued to hold your hands around her neck whilst leaning over her. She could not breathe and reported experiencing a loss of vision and what she described as seeing flashing lights.
Your sister, Montana Edwards, came down the hallway and stood at the lounge room door. She told you to, “leave mum alone, don’t hit mum“. You released your hands from your mother’s neck.
She stood up from the couch and told you to get out. You said again “don’t threaten my fucking family” and pushed her to her shoulders.
The complainant yelled at you to get out. You walk towards the front door at which point you turned around and approached the complainant again and once again said “don’t threaten my family“. You left.
Your mother rang her husband and told him you had tried to kill her. She was advised to ring the police, which she did.
Police attended and she made a report of what had occurred. She was taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital by her husband that night as she was having difficulty swallowing. She was examined by a doctor who noted some redness to the lower aspect of the front of her neck and tenderness throughout the anterior neck. A CT scan was conducted which did not show any internal damage and she was sent home shortly after.
Subsequently you were contacted by police and requested to attend the Bridgewater Police Station to be interviewed, which you did.
You voluntarily attended and about 30 minutes later participated in an electronically recorded interview. Under caution, you stated that you:
- You had attended your mother’s residence approximately 30 minutes after the phone call between the two of you.
- You went to there to have a chat about their previous conversation.
- You said to her, “Don’t ever threaten my family again“.
- You grabbed her around the neck with both of your hands and threw her on the couch.
- You “probably” squeezed her neck.
- The force used was a six out of ten.
- When she got up from the couch, she told police she “kept blabbering, having a go and carrying on”.
- Your sister Montana Edwards was present and asked you to stop.
- After the incident you left the residence.
You are 26 years old and you are, as I have noted, in a relationship. That relationship is described by your counsel as being a stable one. There is a child of the relationship Lincoln.
You commenced working when you were 13 years old whilst continuing your school studies. This was labouring work and resulted in your being sponsored for a stonemasons apprenticeship. You have on the evidence demonstrated a strong work ethic and I have been presented with a reference speaking to your character to which I have regard.
This offence appears to be the product of a complex relationship within your family.
Some of that difficulty emerges from your judgement that your mother took the side of your former partner when that earlier relationship ended. You claim that she was derisive of your capacity as a father and maligned you in the presence of others including the child of that relationship. This included promulgating/ what your counsel describes/ as false and outrageous claims about you.
This difficulty is compounded by your belief that your mother has shown no interest in your current relationship nor in seeing her new grandson.
It is submitted to me by your counsel that your actions resulted from a build-up of anger and frustration with the way you and your partner were being treated by your mother. It is put to me and I accept that on the day you attended at her residence, you did so with no intention of causing violence.
I accept that your actions were impulsive and the product of a longstanding tension to which I have referred and which plainly has not been appropriately addressed.
You are in part responsible for that fact though it appears to me that given the long standing nature of those difficulties resolution required more than good intentions on your part and probably some form of professional assistance, and that would require a willingness and effort on the part of your mother as well but there is, on balance, no suggestion of any attempt within the family sensibly resolve the issues which have developed.
Relationship difficulties left unaddressed have the potential to become major problems as this episode clearly demonstrates. None of those tensions justifies the violence you inflicted upon your mother that day. Violence of the sort exhibited here carries with it the risk of serious physical and emotional injury.
In that respect, I have received a victim impact statement prepared by your mother to which I have had some regard though I accept the force of the submissions made by your counsel in relation to some of the claims contained within it. I do not afford weight to those claims of your mother relating to your intention that day, and insofar as claims are made with respect to the physical consequences of your actions I accept the physical consequences described in the Crown Statement of Facts to which I have already referred.
That does not mean that the sentence the Court imposes should ignore the consequences of your actions or the need to vindicate the victim of your crime. That remains an important sentencing consideration.
It is also important that the sentence recognises the need to deter others from engaging in violent physical assaults in circumstances of domestic or relationship tension and conflict. As I have said this situation called for a mature response from you.
This episode should serve to reinforce the importance of not allowing matters to develop to the point where you abandon the qualities you have otherwise exhibited according to those who know something about you.
The only reasonable inference I can draw from your history is that this episode is out of character for you. The Court can and should conclude that this episode does not reflect the person you are. That is not to say as I have touched upon already that the conduct is not objectively serious and the sentence must reflect that.
I take account of your plea of guilty. I note what has been said to me about the timing of that plea and I accept the submission put to me by your counsel that the history of this matter does not reflect a failure on your part to acknowledge your actions and indicate an acceptance of them through an early plea of guilty
Accordingly I will discount the sentence I would otherwise have imposed by 20% in recognition of the utilitarian benefit which accrues.
I also accept to that this matter has been hanging over you for some time which has caused stress and uncertainty and considerable anxiety.
Ultimately in arriving at an appropriate sentencing response I have regard to the matters to which I have referred which emphasised your good character, Acceptance that you did not visit your mother that day intending to do violence, that you are remorseful and that you entered an early plea of guilty. I also accept that it is unlikely that you will offend like this again. By reason of those matters the need for personal deterrence is diminished. The need to deter others is of course also important in framing sentence: An important function of sentencing is the communication to others that behaviour of the type exhibited here is not accepted by the community and must be discouraged within the community.
Balancing those considerations I have determined that a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment is an appropriate sentencing response. The order of the Court is that you are sentenced to three months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of two years on condition that you are of good behaviour for that period and commit no offence punishable by a term of imprisonment during that time.