AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 6 March 2026

Teuma v R

[2026] NSWDC 36

Assault & violenceDomestic & family violence
CRIMINAL LAW APPEALS AND REVIEWS

Citation: Teuma v R [2026] NSWDC 36
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 March 2026
Judge(s): Abadee DCJ

Background

The appellant, Mr Jason Teuma, appealed his conviction in Muswellbrook Local Court for an offence of intentional choking contrary to s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He had been found guilty on 18 August 2025 by Magistrate Hockey of that offence and a second offence of contravening a prohibition in an Apprehended Violence Order. The choking offence was alleged to have occurred on 6 August 2023 at Murrurundi, more than two years before the conviction.

The complainant was the appellant's former partner. The Crown case was that while the couple were in bed following an argument, the appellant rolled the complainant over and applied force to her neck area — placing his arm around her chin, mouth, and throat — for approximately 20 seconds, during which she could not breathe and either lost consciousness or came close to doing so. The appellant's case was that he had merely hugged her. The only two witnesses at the Local Court hearing were the complainant and the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant was partly granted leave to rely on fresh evidence, including Telstra phone records and an astrophysics report from Associate Professor Brad Tucker of the Australian National University concerning the sunset time in Murrurundi on 6 August 2023. The complainant was also directed to attend and give further evidence. The appeal proceeded as a rehearing in the District Court.

  • Whether the elements of the offence of intentional choking under s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 were established beyond reasonable doubt — specifically, whether the appellant's intentional application of pressure to the complainant's neck was capable of affecting her breathing or blood flow to or from the head, as required by the Court of Criminal Appeal's construction in GS v R; DPP (NSW) v GS (2022) 107 NSWLR 618.

  • Assessment of the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the appellant, including whether inconsistencies and variations in the complainant's account undermined the Crown case, and whether the appellant's account was credible.

  • The significance of fresh evidence on appeal — particularly Telstra records and an expert report on sunset times — and whether this evidence affected the assessment of the witnesses' accounts and the timeline of events.

  • Whether the Magistrate's reasons adequately addressed material aspects of the evidence, including inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and matters raised in the text message sent by the appellant on the evening in question.

Decision

Abadee DCJ conducted a fresh hearing on the appeal, hearing further evidence from the complainant and considering the fresh evidence admitted on appeal. The judgment addressed the credibility of both witnesses at length.

The court identified several variations and inconsistencies in the complainant's account — including whether she had fully blacked out or was merely "seconds away" from blacking out, and discrepancies in the timeline of events on the evening of 6 August 2023. The fresh evidence concerning sunset time (Associate Professor Tucker's report placed the sunset at approximately 5:23pm) was relevant to testing aspects of the complainant's account, particularly her recollection that she ran outside and hid near a shed while the sun was setting. The Telstra records were also relevant to the timeline.

The court also closely examined a lengthy text message sent by the appellant at approximately 6:32pm on 6 August 2023. The appellant's message — in which he apologised, referred to his desperation, acknowledged his partner's medical background in understanding "victims," and urged "never go there again" — was potentially significant. The Crown relied on this message as containing admissions or language consistent with violent conduct having occurred, while the appellant offered an alternative, benign interpretation. The court considered whether the message was more consistent with remorse following a choking incident or with distress about the state of the relationship and his illness.

Abadee DCJ acknowledged the principles from Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd regarding the known unreliability of memory and the importance of contemporaneous documentary evidence in assessing witness credibility. His Honour also referenced R v Scott [2023] NSWDC 271 in relation to the assessment of similar offences. Ultimately, the judgment turned on whether the Crown had discharged its burden of proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt in light of all the evidence, including the fresh material.

The court found that the Magistrate's reasons had not adequately grappled with certain material inconsistencies and aspects of the evidence. On the rehearing, after weighing all the evidence — including the complainant's and appellant's oral testimony, the text message, the phone records, and the sunset time evidence — Abadee DCJ was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of intentional choking had been made out. The appeal against conviction on the choking charge was allowed.

Orders Made

  • The appeal against the conviction for intentional choking contrary to s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was allowed.
  • The conviction for the choking offence was set aside.

(Note: The judgment text provided was truncated, and the precise final orders are drawn from the reasoning as disclosed. Practitioners should consult the full judgment for the complete terms of the orders made.)

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the element of "intentional choking" requires more than trivial pressure on the neck. Following GS v R, the prosecution must prove that the pressure applied was capable of affecting breath or blood flow to or from the head, not that such consequences actually occurred, but that they were a real possibility. The location and manner of pressure were identified as critical factual questions.

  • Credibility assessment in domestic violence cases demands rigorous engagement with inconsistencies. While minor variations in a complainant's account may not be fatal to the Crown case, material inconsistencies (particularly regarding the nature and severity of the alleged conduct and the surrounding timeline) must be squarely addressed in reasons.

  • The District Court accepted that fresh evidence, including expert evidence on seemingly peripheral matters, can carry significance. An astrophysics report on sunset times, though apparently tangential, served an important role in testing the internal consistency of the complainant's account and the timeline of events.

  • Contemporaneous documentary evidence, such as text messages, can support competing inferences. The Court confirmed that careful consideration is required as to whether the natural reading of a message supports an inference of guilt or is equally consistent with an innocent explanation, applying the Gestmin principles regarding the appropriate weight to be given to documentary evidence over later reconstructed oral testimony.

  • In conducting the appellate rehearing, the District Court undertook its own evaluation of the evidence, including fresh material, and was not bound by the Magistrate's credibility findings, confirming that such rehearings provide a genuine opportunity to reassess findings of fact.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 37(1A), 61
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14

Cases:
- GS v R; DPP (NSW) v GS (2022) 107 NSWLR 618; [2022] NSWCCA 65
- Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
- R v Scott [2023] NSWDC 271