In the Supreme Court of Queensland case R v HBZ [2020] QCA 73, the appellant, HBZ, appealed against both the conviction and sentence imparted for choking in a domestic setting and a common assault charge. The court upheld the conviction, discerning no error in the jury's interpretation of "choked" as hindering or stopping a person's breathing, or any misdirection by the trial judge concerning the definition and application of the term "choked" to the appellant's actions. Additionally, the court found no substantial concern that validated HBZ's claim of an unfair trial, nor did they find the verdicts unreasonable with regard to the evidence presented.
However, the appeal against the sentence was partially successful. The original sentence for the choking offence was deemed manifestly excessive given HBZ's clean criminal record and the nature of the offence, which, although serious, was considered not as grave as in comparable precedents. Consequently, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to two years' imprisonment with parole eligibility set for 5 June 2020, reaffirming the importance of general deterrence and protection against domestic violence within the legal framework.
From the TLDR Caselaw Archive