A man who strangled his ex-partner then attacked her again while on bail has won his appeal and may serve the rest of his sentence on home detention.
Nathan Graham Parry (34), a Mosgiel concrete worker, was last year jailed for two and a-half years after admitting charges of strangulation, assault with intent to injure and assault in a family relationship.
Because the sentence was above the two-year threshold, home detention could not be considered.
Parry appealed to the High Court and Justice Rob Osborne agreed the outcome was manifestly excessive.
He reduced the prison term to 22 months and opened the door for an electronically-monitored sentence, should an appropriate address be found.
Parry’s first assault took place on April 14 after the victim had returned home after drinking.
She received a message from a male friend to which the defendant took exception and he contacted the man, telling him to leave her alone.
As Parry’s anger spilled over, he grabbed the woman’s neck and forced her backwards into a bedroom where he maintained his grip for up to 10 seconds.
When he let go, the victim rolled away and he punched her three times in the back of the head before leaving the house.
The woman, who suffered bruising to her neck and a large welt on her head, went to police and Parry was arrested then bailed a week later.
His conditions of release prohibited from acting violently or going to the victim’s home.
But on July 9, while awaiting sentencing, Parry breached those terms in an attack that Judge Michael Turner said had “troubling similarities” to the previous incident.
The pair argued and the defendant again gripped her neck, only releasing her when she slammed a ceramic plate on his head.
Parry re-established his grip and forced the woman back against a door before fleeing.
Counsel Meg Scally “took issue with nearly every aspect of the ... sentencing approach” on appeal.
Justice Osborne agreed that Judge Turner had taken a starting point in constructing the sentence that was too high and ruled he had been too harsh when considering the second episode.
“An important feature of this case, unlike some more serious cases of strangulation, is that there was neither a threat to kill nor a loss of consciousness or infliction of urinary incontinence. In fact, the strangulation was relatively brief, as noted by the judge,” Justice Osborne said.
A protection order remains in favour of the victim.
