A former Hidden Valley Ford technician who threatened to slice his girlfriend's throat and bury her in the backyard during a terrifying DV incident last year appears to have Darwin local court on his side, as sentencing discussions persisted around crafting an outcome to avoid Australia's deportation laws.
24-year-old Bangladeshi national Mohammad Rafi faced Darwin local court from Holtze prison over video link yesterday, on DV charges including 'Threat to kill, Aggravated Assault, Breach of Bail, Aggravated Stalking, and Deprivation of Liberty.'
Despite Rafi's tears of joy before his release on bail last year, and his acceptance of a stern warning by judge Greg MacDonald on his behavior, it appears Rafi could not help himself, starting a campaign of harassment against his former partner on the same day he was released.

Judge MacDonald had warned him last year before he got bail: "You are to have absolutely nothing to do with that woman!
"You don't go anywhere near her. You don't telephone her. Facebook. No social media. Nothing!
"You do that, and you'll be in jail. For over a year. And then you'll be kicked out of Australia as well. So it's up to you."
Yesterday Rafi appeared over video link again for sentencing on both his first file and his re-offending while out on bail.
The crown prosecution read out the agreed facts: "The offender and the victim were in a domestic relationship between November 2022 and August 2024.
"On the June 7th 2024 the victim returned home from work at 3am, and was immediately confronted by the offender, who started yelling at her about old arguments.
"The offender's behavior escalated to the point where he threatened to [inaudible] the victim, which is a method of slaughtering animals by slicing their throat, and then bury her in the backyard.
"When the victim told the offender to move away from her, he proceeded to push the victim into the bedroom and onto the bed.
"The offender got on top of the victim, grabbed the victim's arms, pinning her against the bed and stopping her from defending herself.
"The offender spat at the victim, while telling her he'd do anything he wanted to her.
"The victim told the offender to get off her, or she would scream out and call the police.
"The offender responded by covering the victim's mouth for 10 to 15 seconds.
"The victim bit the offender's finger to free herself, and in the process, caused a cut to her lip.
"The offender got off the victim when he noticed her lip was bleeding."

The agreed facts read that later the same day, the victim attended Casuarina police station to make a formal complaint, and the offender was located and arrested at work.
Injuries to the victim were bruising to her arm and scratches to her face.
A two-year non-contact DVO was granted to the victim.
Rafi was released on bail with conditions not to contact his victim (see our first story here: ‘You will be kicked out of Australia’: Judge warns Ford technician not to contact his alleged DV victim while out on bail | The Mango Inquirer) on June 17th, and on June 21st the two-year DVO prevented him contacting the victim either directly or indirectly.
Immediately upon his release from Holtze prison however, Rafi initiated ongoing contact with the protected person both over the phone and in-person, where he made multiple requests that the charges be dropped, and the DVO be revoked.
The crown prosecutor said Rafi used "repeated contact" and "emotional manipulation which had a detrimental impact on the victim".
"The offender repeatedly told the victim that due to the charges and the DVO he was having difficulties finding somewhere to live and was at risk of being deported.
"The victim initially engaged with the offender expressing concern and guilt at the offender's situation."
The crown prosecution said Rafi would often yell at the victim over the phone, while telling her she needed to remove the DVO.
"On one occasion [the offender] grabbed her by the jaw, while asking 'why don't you understand I'm going through all of this'."
- Crown prosecutor
"Due to the substantial pressure from the offender, the victim made active enquiries with NT police and the courts to have the charges and the domestic violence order withdrawn.
"On the July 15th 2024 the victim went to Darwin local court to submit an application to vary or revoke a domestic violence order. When completing the variation paperwork, the victim sent the offender a message, asking what she should write in the revocation application.
"The offender then responded with a paragraph, which the victim wrote into the application.
"The victim lodged the application but was later denied in Darwin court."
The agreed facts stated that when the victim tried again to break-off communication with Rafi from August 9th, he proceeded to call her 62 times over the course of two days.
The second set of DV charges against Rafi including 'Deprivation of Liberty' occurred on August 11th, amid the ongoing harassment, when a mutual friend of the former couple was used by the offender to see her in person.
The crown prosecution laid out in the agreed facts that mutual friend Mohammad Asif organised to collect the victim from her residence so they could discuss 'unrelated legal concerns'.
"Asif collected the victim and drove her to a place in the vicinity of Dickward Drive Coconut Grove.
"While the victim was with Asif, the offender called Asif and obtained his location. When Asif told him where they were, the victim made it clear she did not want to talk to the offender and asked him to drive somewhere else, although Asif remained parked.
"Several minutes later, the offender arrived at the victim's location. He parked in front of Asif's car.
"The offender had his friend, John Rafusos in his car with him. The offender walked up to the front passenger side of Asif's vehicle, and proceeded to talk to the victim about the lease at [address]. The victim told the offender she did not want to speak with him, or to go with him.
"The offender continued to try and talk to the victim for several minutes. During the conversation, Asif said words to the effect of: 'don't get angry, just talk with him and go with him.'
"The victim told Asif she did not want to go with the offender, and said she felt scared.
"The offender said 'you're not listening to me, I need to do this', before grabbing the victim by the hand and pulling her out of the vehicle and toward him.
"The offender continued trying to discuss the issue with the lease, and told the victim 'if you don't vacate the house, the agent will threaten you.'
"The victim continued to say she did not want to be with the offender or to talk to him.
"The offender began to push the victim towards Rafusos' car. The victim pushed away from the offender, loudly telling him to leave her alone, and that she was being kidnapped."
- Crown prosecutor
"The offender covered the victim's mouth with his hand and said 'don't be loud' to the victim.
The former couple's mutual friend Asif reportedly said words to the effect of: "This isn't a kidnapping" and "just go with him".
The crown prosecutor read on: "The offender held both of the victims' hands and pulled her into the car [he arrived in]. He put the victim into the front seat and proceeded to climb into the driver's seat from the passenger's side, while Rafusos sat in the back seat.
"Due to the two men being friends with the offender, and not helping the victim, the victim felt that she could not run or get free, that she would be caught."
The prosecutor noted the car's movement was captured on nearby CCTV on Bagot Road at 6.55pm with the victim in the front passenger seat.
"The victim remained fearful on trying to escape. The offender drove to Britomart Gardens in Alawa.
"When they arrived, the offender told the victim to stay in the car while he and his friend went inside to give the residents the rent.
"The victim agreed to stay in the car as she feared retaliation from the offender.
"When the offender and his friend went into the residence the victim used her phone to call an Uber and exited the car and hid behind a tree until the Uber arrived."
- Crown prosecutor
"During the incident, the offender was wearing his approved ankle monitor which tracks his movements.
"The victim later reported the incident to police.
"As a result of the assault, the victim didn't suffer any physical injury, however the incident had significant mental health impacts, including fear of seeing the offender again; fear of his friends, ongoing anxiety and an apprehension of leaving her residence, and going out in public."
The agreed facts explained how the offender continued to call the victim nearly a hundred times, and was using a private number, as the victim was screening the calls, causing the victim to "fear for her personal safety".
Five days after the deprivation of liberty charge, and with multiple Ubers being sent to her residence to pick her up, and refused; the victim reported the incident to NT police.
Unbelievably, after he was re-arrested and taken back to Holtze prison, Rafi continued to try and contact his victim by using the outside partner of another inmate on his behalf, requesting she renew his passport.
We've left the names of the third parties out, but the contact was conveyed via sms.
Defence barrister Michael Drury made submissions to the court: "Objectively, the facts accurately reflect the offending.
"The only submission I would make in relation to that, is I would ask your honour to look at this offending towards the upper lower end.
"The basis for that your honour, in relation to the most substantive file, is reflected in the facts that there were no physical injuries.
"In relation to 262 your honour, the medical professional refers to superficial scratch marks in relation to the photographs your honour has seen.
"I would ask your honour to consider this offending, while we concede this is serious offending, it is at the lower end of objective seriousness for this type of offending.
"I will briefly reiterate, superficial scratching your honour, and no physical injuries in relation to the deprivation of liberty your honour; would ask your honour to give that any weight that your honour would deem suitable."
- Defence barrister Drury
"My client is currently 24-years-old. He was 23 at the time of offending. He's a young man, born in Bangladesh, and has been in Australia for seven years.
"Your honour is well-aware 23 is a young person for sentencing purposes. I would ask your honour to give that the requisite weight.
"Your honour, there were substantial charges withdrawn. There were amendments to the facts."
The crown prosecutor added to proceedings that while more substantial charges were withdrawn, the changes to the facts were "minimal".
Defence barrister Drury continued: "A young person your honour; no criminal history, and an early plea. This is a young man who is a fully qualified mechanic.
"Your honour he came to Australia to study cyber security and then had a change of heart. He switched successfully to automotive engineering.
"He was at the time of his arrest working fulltime for Hidden Valley Ford. Your honour, he's always been a contributing member of every community he's been a part of.
Defence barrister Drury went through the defendant's voluntary help on friend's car issues, and described charity work he did in Sydney for kids and the disabled, but conceded they were "bar table submissions", as opposed to having personal references confirming as such.
Rafi's defence barrister said he spoke with the victim this morning: "She reflects that he has apologised for his conduct.
"She has also reflected that she has accepted his apology. And she reflected this morning that she believes he's taken true responsibility for his actions.
"In my submission your honour, rehabilitation has to be a key factor in this sentencing exercise.
"We do also accept that personal and general deterrence and potentially denunciation are relevant sentencing principles your honour.
"If my client is sentenced to a 12-month custodial sentence or greater, he will be deported.
"I would ask your honour to take that into account as extra-curial punishment.
"Ultimately we are asking your honour to fashion a sentence in a way that would potentially negate that 12 months.
"I do realise this is serious offending your honour. But, my client is genuinely sorry.
"He does have strong subjective circumstances in his favour; being never seen before the court.
"This is a young man, if he was allowed to stay, he wouldn't be on social security benefits or the like. If he was ultimately accepted.
The acting judge replied: "My concern is for any future women he might meet, because this behavior is deeply troubling.
"It is controlling, manipulative behavior. It's relentless. How could I, say, fashion a sentence that will allow me to do what needs to get done, that doesn't his [inaudible] visa status?"
Defence barrister Drury replied: "This is serious offending your honour.
"All I can say in relation to that, and this is not mitigatory, but more contextual; this is a young man that has come from a [inauble] society.
"He's grown up in a society where men unfortunately treat women in ways that is not accepted in this country."
- Defence barrister Drury
"He has somewhat imported those views that he was brought up in.
"He now reflects this [inaudible] that he accepts this conduct is unacceptable. He knows that he has done is wrong.
"This is a watershed moment for this young man. He has done almost six months in custody. He has thought extremely deeply about his offending.
"What I'm ultimately asking your honour; it is a difficult sentence to fashion your honour, but potentially, if he was to serve 11 months, dare I say short and sharp; but if he was to serve a long custodial sentence.
"He's already done six months. That would then allow nothing to suspend on the back end, is one potential way your honour could...
Acting judge: "Look; if I gave him 11 months on one file, could I then give him 11 months on the other file, and suspend that?
Defence barrister Drury: "If your honour was to make that concurrent, I believe that could be the case.
"I do understand the difficulty in your honour's exercise, but we are emphasising this is a young man who left his family.
"He's come to Australia to train himself. He was working fulltime at the time this offending went on. He comes before the court with no history. His subjective factors are strong.
"I'm ultimately asking your honour to fashion a sentence in a way to give this young man a chance.
The crown prosecutor started his submissions to the court: "Your honour already knows how relentless and controlling his offending was."
"It's an example of prolonged systematic domestic violence. It's a part of domestic violence that is more hidden, than the typical Domestic violence seen by the courts."
- Crown prosecutor
"We would say it's no less [inaudible] and no less concerning to the community.
"Over a period of three months the offender has utilised a combination of force, threats and [inaudible] and harassment to control the victim, who I will note is also a young person who left their family overseas and moved to Australia.
"While rehabilitation is a significant sentencing principle for young offenders and those who have no prior history, we would submit that offending of this nature would mean that the court should place equal if not greater weight on denunciation and general deterrence and protection of the community.
"We submit that the conduct on the file in the threat to kill in particular [first incident], is well within the mid-range of objective seriousness, while the threat was not made with a weapon or any indication that it was immediately about to be carried out; it was graphic; it was demeaning.
Acting judge: "I accept the [inaudible].
The prosecution said that while they conceded the superficial nature of the injuries during the assault, it was noted the incident "only stopped when the victim was able to fight back biting the offender's finger."
"The offender had entered into a bail undertaking that included conditions not to contact the victim. He then [inaudible] court orders and relentlessly contacted the victim, and continued to subject her to worse behaviour."
"His actions had such a negative impact on the victim, that she's gone to the court and actively tried to withdraw the DVO. She's actively contacted police to discontinue the proceedings. However, both the courts and police have decided not to do so."
- Crown prosecutor
"The offender continued to menace and harass the victim even after that occurred. In particular, she made a plea to the offender at one stage that she no longer wanted anything to do with him, and his actions escalated.
"They escalated to a point where he used a third party to obtain her location and to force her to go with him.
"Again your honour, the Deprive a Person of Liberty charge attracts a maximum penalty of five years in prison. As does the reprisals and threats to a witness or person involved in a criminal investigation.
"We say that the ongoing intimidation of the victim due to being involved in the proceedings and that escalation put count 11 well into the mid-range of objective seriousness.
"The prosecution acknowledges it's appropriate for a degree of concurrency in any penalty imposed due to considerable overlap of the [inaudible] in these charges, but the principle of totality must be weighed up against proportionality, [inaudible] sentence would still need to be imposed for each count, prior to making any degree concurrent.
"Your honour, the offender spent 10 days in custody on the first occasion.
The acting judge put a proposal to the prosecution: "If for example I was to give him 11 months on one file, and 11 months home detention or 18 months suspended for a period of time on other file, to follow each other, would that breach his visa obligations?"
Prosecution: "Your honour, I have no knowledge of the visa obligations. I wouldn't be able to speak as to whether that would breach them.
"The prosecution's concern would be that any extra-curial punishment that may be caused by the defendant being deported would only, in my submission, be triggered for your honour, if that was a live concern with a term of imprisonment greater than 12 months.
"If a term is structured to be less than 12-months, then there wouldn't be extra-curial punishment to be considered by your honour."
While trying to read the room on the sentencing discussions between the judge, defence barrister and prosecution; the overall vibe in my opinion was leaning towards avoiding the defendant getting deported if he were in prison for 12 months.
But then the prosecution put forward another consideration: "As for the term of imprisonment to impose; it's difficult to quantify for your honour.
"It may be that a term under 12 months in total could be considered particularly low, given the mid-range of offending, in our submission."
- Crown prosecutor
"Your honour, the appropriate back date would be the 5th August 2024. That's a back date of 5 months and 30 days.
"The prosecution's position is that that extra-curial punishment would only be [inaudible] to be considered [inaudible] was to be deported.
"It might not be [inaudible] to structure a sentence to prevent that from occurring.
Defence barrister Drury spoke up: "In my submission your honour, a low-level assault such as this with superficial scratching..."
Acting judge:"I have to tell you Mr Drury, I'm not so concerned about the physical effectiveness. My concern on the first file is the threat to kill, which I regard as particularly serious, and the psychological impact of the insult, and then on the second file the psychological impact of the offending, and the kidnapping."
Defence barrister Drury said the charge wasn't kidnapping but deprivation of liberty, before the acting judge pointed out it was "akin to kidnapping".
Acting judge: "I accept that while the assault might be characterised towards the lower end of the range; that's not my main concern for this offending.
"I find his behavior really worrying.
"If I give him more than 12-months in total, [inaudible] any of it suspended, does that put him...
Defence barrister Drury: "I'm unsure of the exact law around that your honour. It's my understanding that it's a 12-month custodial sentence; whether that pertains to anything suspended..."
Acting judge: "Do you want an opportunity to find that out?"
After a brief lunch adjournment, the prosecution returned with a case decision that could affect the judge's sentencing.
The prosecution said: "Ultimately it's the prosecution's submission that the case [researched during the lunch break] confirms the court may not take into account prospect of deportation when crafting a sentence and cannot craft a sentence to avoid that prospect.
"Your honour can consider, or in certain circumstances can consider extra-curial punishment that might arise from a term of imprisonment; however the head sentence has to be reached and approached from a point of view where deportation isn't considered until after the fact, [inaudible] cannot be crafted to avoid that as a consequence."
"That doesn't preclude your honour from coming to that position anyway. If your honour removes that portion from your mind, your honour can still get to that position anyway."
- Defence barrister Drury
The acting judge ordered a pre-sentencing report to assist with his decision, and adjourned the matter to March 10th.
We are The Mango Inquirer.
Note: Take into consideration this is not a word-for-word transcript of everything that was said during the hearing yesterday.
Sometimes statements become too repetitive to include, or there is courtroom ambient noise making some sentences too inaudible to transcribe.
This is most of what was said, and is a pretty true representation in our opinion.
If anyone's misquoted get in contact, and I'll rectify.
