1) The homicide committed by Simon Gittany against Lisa Harnum on 30 July 2011 occurred within a domestic context, while the couple were living together in Sydney and engaged to be married (R v Gittany, 2013). This style of violent offence is characterised as Intimate Femicide (Brookman, 2005).
2)Mr Gittany was a 40-year-old businessman and self-confessed Christian. The accused was extremely jealous, dominating and controlling in nature, especially towards his partner Ms. Harnum (R v Gittany, 2014). The extent of Mr Gittany’s control was so extreme that the accused set up CCTV camera in the apartment that the couple shared to watch Ms Harnum whilst also monitoring her text messages and emails through computer software (“Murderer Simon Gittany’s Violent and Drug Dealing Past Revealed”, 2013). Gittany had an existing record of criminal offences before he was ultimately convicted of murder of the late Ms Harnum (“Murderer Simon Gittany’s Violent and Drug Dealing Past Revealed”, 2013). His first conviction, in 1991, he was arrested and charged was assault occasioning actual bodily harm (“Murderer Simon Gittany’s Violent and Drug Dealing Past Revealed”, 2013). Gittany was then charged in August of 1993 for possession of stolen goods and, then again in 1994, when he attacked and bit off a policeman’s ear. (“Murderer Simon Gittany’s Violent and Drug Dealing Past Revealed”, 2013). Finally, in 2000, Gittany was caught with possession of drug supply, however he never served a full prison sentence for these crimes (“Murderer Simon Gittany’s Violent and Drug Dealing Past Revealed”, 2013).
3)The offender’s characteristics seemed correlative with general patterns in offenders who commit Intimate Femicide. Both the accused and victim lived together as sexual intimates, which is a common factor among these types of homicides (Brookman, 2005). These homicides are generally motivated by “jealousy/control” (Polk, 1994) and it appears that this is a key motive behind Mr Gittany actions against Ms Harnum (Brookman, 2005). It can be argued that the homicide was committed due to sudden rage that exploded in response to Mr Gittany’s fear of Ms. Harnum leaving him. Additionally, the accused had an extensive history of stalking as well as extreme control and possessiveness towards the victim going as far to control what she wore, where she went and how she behaved (R v Gittany (No 5), 2014). Furthermore, analysis of nineteen intimate partner homicides found that half occurred in response to the victim’s attempts to leave the offending partner, which is again consistent with this homicide (Brookman, 2005). Unlike most Intimate Femicide cases where the homicide occurred after many years of marriage (Brookman, 2005), the relationship between Mr Gittany and Ms. Harnum only lasted a duration of 18 months before the homicide was committed (R v Gittany (No 4) ,2013). Additionally, it has also been reported that the alcohol abuse is a dominate feature among these homicides that spur from sudden rage (Brookman, 2005). However, neither the accused or the victim were under the influence of alcohol at the time (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013).
4) Ms Harnum was a 30-year-old Canadian, living in Australia with Mr Gittany on a working visa. She has been described by Mr Gittany as a “warm and vivacious person” (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). Harnum had previously been employed as a hairdresser by Australian Hair & Beauty, however resigned from this position in May of 2010 at the “encouragement” of Mr Gittany (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). She then received employment from one of Mr Gittany’s friends in early 2010 in a hair salon, however it is unsure whether she was paid for this work. It should be noted that Harnum struggled with her mental health for years, suffering from anxiety, anorexia and bulimia (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). Her anorexia was so severe at points that she was hospitalised twice, once in 1999 and again in 2000(R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). Additionally, she also struggled with incredibly low self-esteem and self-confidence which likely stemmed from the control inflicted on her by Mr Gittany (R v Gittany (No 5), 2014). She also stated she felt “trapped” in her relationship to Mr. Gittany (R v Gittany (No 4) 2013), indicating the controlling dynamic that had developed prior to the offence. Before Ms. Harnum’s death, it can be said for certain that she suffered from previous victimization at the hands of her domestic partners, not only from Mr. Gittany but from another partner too (R v Gittany (No 4) 2013). It should also be noted that Ms. Harnum experienced bulling at the hands of her schoolmates which may have also contributed to her poor mental health (R v Gittany (No 4) 2013).
5) The victim characteristics displayed by Ms. Harnum were, in many ways, similar to general patterns we seen in victims of Intimate partner homicide. It is clear that the relationship shared between the victim and the accused was dictated by extreme jealousy and possessiveness (R v Gittany (No 5), 2014). The victim did not have any source of income, which reflects common correlation between women of low socioeconomic income and these types of murders (US Department of Justice [USDJ], 2000). Additionally, the mean age of Intimate Femicide is around the age of 30 (USDJ, 2000), which is was the age of Ms. Harnum’s age when the offence occured. However, unlike 53% (USDJ, 2000) of victims of this homicide that reported prior incidents of violence to the law, Ms. Harnum did not.
6)There were numerous warning signs that emerged as risk factors in the lead up to the death of Ms. Harnum by Mr Gittany. Right before the death of Ms. Harnum, the couple had separated and Ms. Harnum was preparing to move out of the couples shared apartment, in the hopes of returning to Canada (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). A substantial amount of Intimate Femicide’s are committed out of fear of separation which is a clear motive for Mr. Gittany’s actions (Brookman, 2005). The control and possessiveness that Mr Gittany tried to extend over his fiancé were extreme. Michelle Richmond presented evidence about this, saying “she felt really beautiful but when she got home, because her hair was out, Simon became angry and aggressive and she wasn’t allowed to go back to work at the hairdresser” (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). By early 2010 he has installed CCTV cameras inside their apartment and installed software that would allow him to read her emails and texts (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). Previous threats towards the victim from the accessed were extreme. There were threats of physical violence towards the victim from the accused prior to her death, saying that he would kill her and “make it look like a suicide” (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). Additionally, Ms. Harnum struggled deeply with her mental health issues for many years (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). These issues notably became more prominent towards the end of the relationship as the behaviour of Mr. Gittany deteriorated (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). While Ms. Harnum did seek to have such issues dealt with, it can be argued that the extreme pressure Mr. Gittany put on her contributed heavily to her poor state of mental health at the time of her death (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013).
7) There were many potential guardians that could have had the power to protect Ms. Harnum against Mr. Gittany. The victim’s mother, Mrs. Joan Harnum regularly contacted her daughter via email and text and had arguably the greatest understanding of the relationship between Mr Gittany and Ms. Harnum (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). Knowing what she knew, the victim’s mother could have contacted the Australian Authorities, domestic violence groups or women’s support to seek advice on the situation and to potentially reach out to Ms. Harnum. Additionally, she could have arranged a flight out to Australia earlier to assist her daughter in leaving Mr. Gittany. Both Ms. Harnum’s personal trainer, Ms. Lisa Brown, and counsellor, Ms Michelle Richmond, were arguably the victims only friends right before the victim’s death (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). Both Lisa and Michelle possessed some knowledge of the events taking place between the victim and the accused and it is very possible that knowing this, they could contact they groups stated above prior to the victim’s death. Old friends of Ms. Harnum’s, such as Ms. Rebecca Triscaru or Ms. Pratt (R v Gittany (No 4), 2013). could have attempted to intervene in the relationship, suggesting to Ms. Harnum that she could find love elsewhere or even contacting above groups.