Remand prisoner convinces ex-partner to withdraw family violence charges with threat of a ‘bullet’

A man phoned his ex-partner “numerous” times in an effort to get family violence charges against him dropped. Photo / 123rf

As the days towards his trial on family violence charges neared, a man on remand in prison threatened his ex-partner that if she didn’t get the accusations dropped, she would “catch a f***ing bullet”.

The defendant had phoned his ex-partner “numerous” times in an effort to get the charges dropped, Judge Glen Marshall said in the Hamilton District Court on Tuesday.

In one phone call, the man said, “If I catch a lag, you catch a f***ing bullet, b****”.

The defendant, who was granted interim name suppression, was successful in his demand.

The victim wrote to police, withdrawing her statement and choosing not to give evidence at the scheduled trial in October 2024.

This week, the man appeared for sentencing on a charge of perverting the course of justice. A second charge of threatening to do grievous bodily harm was withdrawn.

‘Write me a letter’

At the time of the offending, between September 21 and October 5, 2024, the defendant and the victim were ex-partners.

He was on remand for charges of threatening to kill, speaking threateningly and burglary in relation to the victim.

On “numerous” occasions during that time the pair discussed what they would do to get the charges withdrawn.

During those conversations they agreed she would write a letter saying she wanted to withdraw her statement and that she had a condition that affected her memory.

On September 29, the man phoned her from prison and told her, “If I catch a lag, you catch a f***ing bullet, b****”.

However, after writing the letter and refusing to give evidence, the charges were dismissed.

‘He has an unenviable criminal history’

Crown prosecutor Lexie Glaser told the judge there were multiple aggravating features; premeditation, threats of violence, the vulnerability of the victim, and successfully perverting the course of justice.

The man not only had an “unenviable” criminal history but he continued to offend “in a very serious manner”.

She suggested the judge take a starting point of between three years and three years and six months’ jail.

‘He never intended to carry out the threat’

But counsel Kerry Hadaway explained the offending only arose “from ongoing phone calls that yes, [client] made to the victim, however, the purpose was not to engage in this plan”.

She instead suggested the phone calls were “mutual ... pleasant, loving, talking about day-to-day things”.

She accepted there was premeditation “to some degree” because of a couple of steps in the pair’s plan.

There was the threat to shoot her, but Hadaway said her client didn’t have any “means or ability” to execute the threat as he was behind bars.

“This was, to some degree, a joint plan,” Hadaway said, explaining the victim, who was in court this week to support the man, did suffer from a condition that would affect her ability to give evidence.

“He never had any intention for the threat to be taken seriously or to be carried out.

“He does acknowledge he has an anger issue.”

He was also remorseful, attended a restorative justice conference and completed an anger management course while on remand.

‘Justice was significantly interfered with’

Judge Marshall accepted the Crown’s aggravating features and that the “administration of justice was interfered with significantly”.

“His culpability is high as far as this offending is concerned.”

Judge Marshall took a starting point of 36 months’ jail before allowing 20% in discounts for the man’s remorse, rehabilitation, Section 27 report and guilty plea.

After getting down to 28 months, the judge added three months because of the man’s criminal history and jailed him for 31 months, or two years and seven months.

Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 11 years and has been a journalist for 22.