Extortion blackmail dating
In addition, D sent threatening messages to V’s father and his partner.In general, these messages threatened to kill V if she did not repay the money, and/or he would publish intimate photos of her on social media and send them to her friends and family (3½y).Male, aged 48 at date of sentence; violent stepfather; completed Year 12; one daughter – lost contact after separation from child’s mother; methamphetamine use from 2013 – good work history before then and good future prospects; limited criminal history for unrelated offences, but breached earlier PSIO protecting V between blackmail offence and subject breach offence; family support; model prisoner; full cooperation and substantial admissions; remorse Basis for sentence – background information that does not form part of the offending conduct is relevant as context for offending – this includes nature and duration of D’s relationship with V, changes in that relationship over time and circumstances in which D possessed revealing photos of V Basis for sentence – background information also relevant to understanding nature and gravity of offences – such as breach of trust by D of a child he had known for a long time and with whom his relationship was like father and daughter Procedural fairness – sentencing judge not able to draw adverse inferences from admissible material that were contrary to parties’ agreed position without giving prior notice of intention to do so and giving offender opportunity to respond to this Offence gravity for blackmail – very grave and disturbing example of offending Offence gravity for blackmail – factors increasing gravity – sustained duration; frequency and persistence involved; menacing nature of threats, made to both V and her friends and family; fear invoked in V, who moved houses as a result; serious breach of trust involved; planning involved in offending, including use of various means of communication and use of fake accounts to overcome victims’ steps to avoid contact Current sentencing practices – while all cases are unique and sentences in other cases can only offer limited assistance, current sentencing practices must be considered Sentencing purposes for breach of personal safety intervention orders – case emphasising specific deterrence, having regard to multiple instances of breach, offending while on bail and prior breach of separate PSIO The sentencing judge took into account extraneous considerations and relied on matters not supported by the evidence in imposing sentence.Further, the sentencing judge erred in her use of a psychological report regarding the offender’s likelihood of reoffending.D had used the identity documents over six months to commit various acts of dishonesty including: D (a member of an outlaw motorcycle club) and three others entered KT’s home uninvited and demanded over 0,000 from him, intending to cause fear. Because KT refused to pay, D organised others to attend KT’s home, at one time instructing them to leave a bullet in KT’s door. When DF and SF refused to comply, D and J assaulted them, causing cuts and tenderness. D also made threatening calls to LP demanding money that was owed to GA’s construction company.While GA did not tell D to collect debt, D and an unknown person went to the home of RP, LP’s brother, where they assaulted RP and damaged the house, while demanding that AG be paid (2y).In early October 2015, police arrested D and searched his premises, finding 25 x 22 calibre rounds and 1 x 222 calibre round in a plastic zip lock bag (0 fine).
In August 2007, V2 also received threatening phone calls and items in the mail which made demands for the payment of 0,000.The 12 month order prohibited various acts, including electronically publishing on the internet any material about V and contacting or communicating with V in any way.In breach of that order, D contacted V via social media and also published material about her on social media (6m).Upon arrival, D tapped his hand on V’s black Monaro and said “This one’s gone”. D and C positioned themselves between V and the exit, detaining him inside the factory.When V said “No”, D replied “Do you want to play this the hard way or the easy way? D led V into the office looking for registration paperwork relating to the car, where he forced V to complete and sign a fake receipt for his car for ,000 (2y9m).