A woman claimed she was only protecting her teenage daughter from a sexual assault after she touched the girl's vaginal area and used a belt and football boot to assault her, a court has heard.
The woman, in her 40s, appeared in the ACT Supreme Court on Thursday after pleading guilty to a rolled-up charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The court heard the attack was triggered when her daughter in January 2021 confessed to her about going to a local park to see a male friend.
The woman, believing her daughter had been involved in a sexual assault, slapped the girl, who fell onto the ground and curled up in a ball, then punched and kicked her.
The woman then grabbed a belt and struck the girl "countless times", pulled her hair and threw her around.
She also used a football boot to strike her daughter before choking her.
During the ordeal, the woman inspected and touched the girl's vaginal area because of the belief of a sexual assault.
When the girl, who suffered bruises and abrasions, was able to escape the house to notify a neighbour, she was distraught and wearing torn clothes.
The woman's husband tried numerous times but failed to restrain her onslaught.
She then sent her daughter a string of messages, including calling her a whore, "piece of shit" and "cheap scum".
On Thursday during sentencing, the woman gave evidence that she was protecting her daughter.
"I wanted to gain forensic evidence if she was indeed sexually assaulted," the woman said during cross examination by senior prosecutor Erin Priestly.
When she was answering repeated questions about her messages being inconsistent with her statement about protection, she was "just ranting" as described by presiding judge Acting Justice Stephen Norrish.
She also claimed some of her daughter's injuries existed before the assault.
The court heard that when the woman was a child, she suffered sexual abuse that went unreported or was ignored, including by her mother.
Before sentencing, the woman said to authorities "a voice in my head said 'don't be my mother'", prompting her to examine her daughter.
The court heard a conviction would impact the woman's security clearance at work and her church and community work.
Acting Justice Norrish made a non-conviction order because of her past trauma and placed her on a two-year good behaviour order, which includes counselling.
He said that while the offender "completely lost control of her senses", her upbringing and her life experiences "very much intersect with the circumstances of her offending".
He said her belief that it was proper to examine her daughter "has to be judged through the prism of the offender's life experiences" and "the context of having past trauma triggered".
The judge also cited the woman's lack of criminal history and positive character references.
He said her testifying did not do her any favours.
"On the other hand, the details of her evidence reveals the deep-seated myopia which was at the heart of her reaction," the judge said.
Acting Justice Norrish said his ruling was also based on the woman and her daughter reconciling.
However, he rejected her claim about the girl having pre-existing injuries and said she showed a lack of contrition.
"Of course, the protection of children from parents or from other people is a very important matter," he said.
"The court does not seek to act in anyway to indicate to the offender or the community that it condones the conduct that has been established against this particular offender," he said.
The court heard a number of other charges were withdrawn.
Acting Justice Norrish said it would not be possible to prove a charge of indecent act because the woman's touching of her daughter's vaginal area had no sexual connotation.
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
