Former Bachelor Star Sam Wood Should Stay Behind Bars Over ‘Escalating’ Alleged Strangulation of Wife Snezana, Prosecutors Tell Supreme Court as Judge Weighs His Freedom
- Fitness entrepreneur Sam Wood, 46, has now spent 27 days in custody after his October arrest at a Noosa apartment complex over the alleged assault and choking of his wife, Snezana.
- Prosecutors told Brisbane’s Supreme Court the reality TV star poses an “unacceptable risk” of reoffending, pointing to a second alleged strangulation in Victoria in 2021.
- His barrister argued the older allegation is untested and that he has a history of walking away from conflict, and offered a “very substantial surety” and a men’s behaviour change program.
- Justice Patrick McCafferty has reserved his decision, leaving the man who won hearts on The Bachelor in limbo as Queensland’s tough strangulation laws come under the spotlight.
A decade ago, millions of Australians watched Sam Wood hand a final rose to the woman who would become his wife.
On Friday, he was the subject of a bail application in Brisbane’s Supreme Court, where prosecutors argued he should remain in custody over allegations that he assaulted and choked that same woman.
The case against the 46-year-old fitness businessman, who denies the allegations, has become one of the most closely watched domestic violence matters in the country.
It has also become a test of how Queensland’s courts apply bail laws designed to protect victims of strangulation.
Mr Wood, who lives in Melbourne, was arrested on October 3 at an apartment complex in Noosa on the Sunshine Coast. The following day, police charged him with strangulation and assault occasioning bodily harm.
Police allege the incident followed a family argument and that he choked his wife, Snezana Wood. The pair met on the 2015 season of The Bachelor and married in 2018.
His first attempt at freedom failed in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court.
On Friday, his legal team took the fight to the state’s highest court, where Justice Patrick McCafferty heard arguments from both sides before reserving his decision.
Mr Wood’s father, Andrew Wood, sat in the courtroom as the hearing turned to an earlier allegation.
Crown prosecutor Jessica Guy told the court Mrs Wood claims her husband also strangled her in Victoria in 2021, and that she photographed herself afterwards.
The Crown argued that two alleged strangulations, five years apart, showed a dangerous trajectory.
Ms Guy said Mr Wood presented an “unacceptable risk” of reoffending, of failing to appear in court, and of endangering the “safety and wellbeing of others”.
She also raised what the court heard was his alleged drug and alcohol use and his “party lifestyle” as further risk factors.
Mr Wood’s barrister, Ms Moreau, rejected that picture.
She said the 2021 allegation was untested and lacked the witness support or medical evidence attached to the current charges, and that it did not carry the same weight when assessed objectively.
She told the court the relationship had been under strain before the Noosa incident, with significant stressors and confrontations becoming more frequent. The long gap between the two alleged incidents, she argued, did not point to escalation.
Ms Moreau cited Mrs Wood’s own application, which described her husband as having problems with anger and irritation but said he would usually leave and take time to cool off.
That, she argued, showed he was capable of self-control and of avoiding confrontation.
The Crown read the same material differently.
A man who once walked away from arguments, Ms Guy argued, had now allegedly strangled his wife twice, which showed his behaviour was getting worse, not better.
The prosecution’s case rests on a legal shift in Queensland.
Non-fatal strangulation in a domestic setting became a standalone offence in the state in 2016, after advocates warned that the act was a key warning sign of future lethal violence.
For serious charges such as strangulation, there is no presumption of bail in Queensland.
That means Mr Wood must show why he should be released while his case proceeds, rather than the prosecution having to prove why he should be held.
Ms Guy told the court that recent strangulation data and research identified the act as a risk factor for more serious offending. She also said a recent domestic violence taskforce had recommended courts refuse bail in strangulation cases.
The defence pushed back on the substance-use concerns, arguing Mr Wood had no addiction and that those factors would not stop him following bail conditions.
Ms Moreau said any risk would be removed, or at least made minimal, by the existing orders and the proposed bail conditions.
Those proposed conditions included a “very substantial surety” offered by someone close to Mr Wood, reporting to police three times a week, and attending a men’s behaviour change program.
Analysis: What This Means for Australia
Whatever the outcome, this case puts Australia’s response to domestic violence in front of a mass audience.
Strangulation is now widely treated as a red flag. International research has linked prior non-fatal strangulation to a sharply higher risk of a victim later being killed by their partner.
Frontline services across the country have spent years pushing police, magistrates and judges to treat it accordingly.
When a well-known public figure faces such a charge, the decision on bail sends a signal about how the system weighs a victim’s safety against an accused person’s right to liberty before trial.
The defence raised a fair point too. The court heard Mr Wood could end up spending longer on remand than any sentence he might receive if convicted.
That is a long-running criticism of remand practices, and it applies regardless of how famous the accused is.
There are financial consequences as well.
Ms Moreau told the court Mr Wood had worked his whole life and built a successful business, and that the charges had left his employment in a precarious position.
His fitness brand depends heavily on his public profile.
Legal observers say the case shows the tension at the heart of Queensland’s reforms. Lawmakers intended the strangulation provisions to err on the side of protecting victims, but the courts still have to assess each accused person individually.
Domestic violence advocates say high-profile cases often prompt more women to recognise their own experiences and seek help. They warn that how the courts handle these cases can shape whether victims believe they will be taken seriously.
Law enforcement insiders note that alleged prior incidents, even untested ones, are increasingly central to risk assessments. Police are trained to look for patterns of behaviour rather than treating each incident in isolation.
Mr Wood has also fought to limit what the public can learn. He earlier tried, unsuccessfully, to stop media accessing court files relating to his domestic violence proceedings.
A temporary order currently prevents reporting of his proposed bail address and the names and addresses of the people supporting his application.
Justice McCafferty is yet to rule on whether Mr Wood will be released pending trial, or on whether further suppression orders will be made.
Mr Wood has previously denied the allegations, which have not been tested at trial.
If you or someone you know is affected by domestic or family violence, contact 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT. In an emergency, call Triple Zero (000).