Jackson v The King [2026] SASCA 61 (28 May 2026)
Mr Jackson (‘the appellant’) appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal against a sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by a judge of the District Court for offences of domestic violence. The appellant had been in a relationship with his former partner (‘the complainant’) for over a decade until August 2019. They have two daughters. Since 2015 a court intervention order was in place, which prohibited the appellant from assaulting, threatening, harassing, or intimidating the complainant.
The offending for which the appellant was sentenced was very serious and involved three separate offences committed against the complainant. On 20 October 2020, the appellant went to the complainant’s home where she lived with their daughters, and, following an argument, poured petrol on her and threatened her in the presence of their two daughters. Then, on 24 June 2022, the appellant was at the complainant’s home when he punched her in the eye with his fist, causing a black eye. After this, on 23 August 2022, the appellant broke into the complainant’s home while she and the two children were present and asleep. The children were crying, and the appellant entered the complainant’s bedroom and made threats of violence against her.
The sentencing judge imposed a separate sentence for each offence and ordered that they be served ‘cumulatively’ – that is, the appellant would serve each sentence separately, not in conjunction with other sentences. The sentencing judge imposed a term of imprisonment of five years, ten months, and 28 days, after allowing discounts for the appellant’s pleas of guilty to the offences charged. The sentencing judge then fixed a period of three years and four months before the appellant would be eligible for parole. The sentencing judge’s remarks on sentencing included the following:
"You and others must be deterred from this type of offending. A strong message must be sent to the community that the courts will not tolerate this behaviour. This type of behaviour must also be condemned. Domestic violence of any kind is to be abhorred. Parliament has intended to send a message that the use of violence to control or intimidate another person, particularly in a domestic setting, will not be tolerated. The Parliament has also recognised the psychological damage to children from being exposed to such behaviour and the paramount consideration of protecting the safety of such children and victims."
The appellant appealed his sentence on the basis that it was too much, in legal language ‘manifestly excessive’, and argued as well that the sentences should not have been imposed cumulatively. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal, making the observation that
"It is necessary to recognise that this was sustained domestic violence offending committed against a woman in defiance of an intervention order, at times in front of young children. Given the evident need for deterrence and denunciation, we are not satisfied that the individual sentences, or the overall sentence, imposed in this case were outside the available range."