Breach is man’s 16th
Defendant says partner’s bruises are ‘hickies’
A MAN who says the bruises on his partner’s neck are hickies has been denied bail.
The 39-year-old was remanded in custody this week after being held at the watch house after breaching a domestic violence order last week.
Strongly opposing bail, police prosecutor Senior Constable Balan Selvadurai said the defendant would pose an unacceptable risk to the aggrieved if released.
Sen-Constable Selvadurai said about 5.30pm on February 9, the aggrieved called police and told them she needed officers to “come and get” her.
Gladstone Magistrates Court was told the couple had been arguing when the defendant “pinned (the woman) to the wall and held her by the throat”, leaving two bruises on her neck.
Sen-Constable Selvadurai said when police arrived, the man answered the door but had an “aggressive and enraged demeanour”.
He said the man threatened to “kick (the aggrieved’s) f----ing neck in” if she answered the door herself.
Defence lawyer Jun Pepito pushed for his client to be released on bail, saying the man had not had an entry in his history made since 2015.
Mr Pepito also said his client said the dark marks on the victim’s neck were not bruises, but hickies.
Sen-Constable Selvadurai said the verbal threat was an important factor for Magistrate Melanie Ho to consider in her decision.
“It shows that the defendant can stand over the aggrieved,” he said.
The court was told of a previous incident involving the same aggrieved which demonstrated there was a pattern of behaviour.
Sen-Constable Selvadurai said on December 24, 2017, the aggrieved had told police she had been playing with a dog when it jumped up, head-butting her in the eye and injuring her face.
At a later time, the aggrieved told police her facial injuries had actually been caused by the defendant.
“This shows he can stand over her (the aggrieved),” Sen-Constable Selvadurai told Ms Ho.
The court heard the latest offence was the 39-year-old’s 16th breach of a DVO.
In the past, the defendant served at least four months in prison for a similar offence and has 16 pages of criminal history.
He has also failed to appear in court four times.
Ms Ho refused the man’s bail on account that he was “an unacceptable risk” for not showing up to court and to the victim’s safety.