Beyond the Headlines: Breaking Down the Criminal Charges against Sam Wood

Co-Authored by Angelina Romeo

KEY TAKE-AWAYS

• Sam Wood has been charged with assault occasioning bodily harm and strangulation in a domestic setting under Queensland law, but the allegations remain beofre the court and have not been proven.

• To tprove assault occasioning bodily harm, prosecutor must establish that an anlawful asault occurred and that the assault caused bodily harm, meaning an injury that interferes with a person’s health or comfort.

• The offence of strangulation in a domestic setting reflects groing recognition of the risks associated with non-fatal strangulation, which has been identifited as a significant indicator od future violence and comestic homicide.

• Even a partial restrication of breathing or blood circulation may be suffcoent to saisfy the strangulation element of the offence.

---

 

When Sam Wood starred as The Bachelor in 2015, he was a Melbourne-based personal trainer whose search for love played out on national television. Eleven years later, the television personality is facing a domestic violence-related charge involving the partner he ultimately chose on the show.

Publicly available information indicated that police were called to a property in Noosa at around 9:00 pm on Saturday 3 October 2026. Following the incident, Mr Wood was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm and strangulation in a domestic setting under the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). He was refused bail, and the allegations remain before the court and have not yet been proven.

Beyond the headlines, the case provides an opportunity to examine two offenses which have become an increasing focus in domestic and family violence cases. While assault occasioning bodily harm has long existed under Queensland crime legislation, the offense of strangulation in a domestic setting was introduced more recently in recognition of the unique risks associated with non-fatal strangulation and its links to future violence.

 

Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm

Under section 339 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (QLD), assault occasioning bodily harm occurs when a person unlawfully assaults another person and, in doing so, causes bodily harm.

Assault is defined in section 245 as:

• Any striking, touching, moving or otherwise application of force,
• Which occurs either directly or indirectly,
• And is without the person’s consent, or with consent that has been obtained fraudulently.

Bodily harm is generally defined under the Act as any injury to the body which interferes with a person’s health or comfort. In practice, this is a relatively low threshold. Bodily harm does not require a serious or permanent injury and can include a range of physical injuries, provided they interfere with a person’s health or comfort. Overall, prosecutors must prove that an unlawful assault occurred and that the assault caused an injury that in some way interfered with the complainant’s health or comfort.

A person convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm is liable to a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment under Queensland crime legislation.

While this offence can arise from a wide range of factual circumstances, it is treated as particularly serious where it is alleged to have occurred in a domestic relationship. In those cases, courts may also consider the broader context of the relationship and any aggravating circumstances when determining an appropriate sentence. This point is particularly relevant in Wood’s case, given that the charge has been designated as a domestic violence offence.

 

Under New South Wales Legislation 

The New South Wales equivalent of this offence is located at section 59 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which covers Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

For this offence to be proven, prosecutors must establish:

1. That an assault occurred: The accused either applied unlawful physical force to the victim or intentionally caused the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful force
2. Actual bodily harm was caused: The victim suffered an injury that interferes with their health or comfort.
3. Causation: There must be a direct, clear link between the accused’s assault and the resulting injury.
4. Intent or Recklessness: The accused acted intentionally in making contact or threatening violence or was reckless in that they should have foreseen that their actions could possibly result in some physical harm to another person and yet continued anyway.
5. Absence of Consent or Lawful Excuse: The victim did not consent to the act and the accused has no valid legal defence.

In NSW, the base maximum penalty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is 5 years imprisonment, although this can be increased if aggravating factors are present.

 

Strangulation in a Domestic Setting

The offence of strangulation in a domestic setting was introduced in Queensland in 2016 following recommendations contained in the Special Taskforce Domestic and Family Violence report, which found that strangulation was a key indicator for increased risk of harm and a strong predictor of domestic homicide.

Under section 315A of the Queensland Act, a person is said to have committed this offence if they have:

• Unlawfully choked, suffocated or strangled another person, without that person’s consent; and,
• The person is in a domestic relationship with that person, or the act would otherwise be associated with domestic violence.

Importantly, the offence of strangulation does not require a complete blockage of a person’s airway. The legislation provides that a person is taken to have choked, suffocated or strangled another person where pressure is applied to the neck in a way that completely or partially restricts the person’s breathing, blood circulation, or both. This means that even a temporary or partial restriction may be sufficient to satisfy this element of the offence.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, which reflects its seriousness and the heightened risks associated with non-fatal strangulation in domestic and family violence settings. Whether those elements can be established against Wood will ultimately be determined by the court based on the evidence presented.

 

Under New South Wales Legislation 

The NSW equivalent of this offence is located at section 37(1A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which covers choking, suffocation and strangulation, and stipulates a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

For this offence to be proven, the prosecution must establish that:

1. The accused intentionally choked, suffocated or strangled another person; and,
2. It was without the other person’s consent.

The victim does not need to be rendered unconscious for a person to be found guilty of committing this offence in New South Wales.

Section 37(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applies to circumstances in which the victim becomes unconscious and stipulates a higher penalty of 10 years imprisonment if the accused is found guilty of committing this offence.

 

What Happens Next for Sam Wood

With the charges now before the court, the matter will proceed through the Queensland criminal justice system. At each stage, the prosecution will bear the burden of proving every element of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

For now, the allegations against Wood remain untested and unproved. However, the case highlights the way in which the law has adapted to respond to allegations of domestic and family violence. In particular, the introduction of a strangulation offence reflects an increasing recognition of behaviours that may indicate an elevated risk of serious harm, even where visible injuries are limited.

As for Wood, the outcome of the proceedings will depend entirely on the evidence placed before the court and the prosecution’s ability to establish the elements of each offence to the criminal standard.