The celebrity couple, Anthony Bell and Kelly Landry have had their private affairs splashed across the tabloids since early this year.

Today, a Magistrate in Sydney's court put an end to the bitter battle over an interim Apprehended Violence Order.

The terms of the interim order included that Mr Bell must not be in the company of Ms Landry for 12 hours after drinking alcohol.

He was also required to stay away from the couple's Watsons Bay house and must abide by the usual terms of such an order and not assault or harass Ms Landry.

Magistrate Robert Williams has rejected the application by the police for his wife, Kelly Landry for a Final Apprehended Violence Order against accountant to the celebrities, Anthony Bell, saying there was not enough relevant evidence to uphold the application.  

His wife, Kelly Landry, a former TV presenter, sat across the courtroom from her estranged husband while the hour long judgement was delivered.

 

A "disturbing" and "chilling" incident

After a night out late last year, the couple had returned home separately and argued. Ms Landry locked herself in the bedroom. The court heard that Mr Bell used a butter knife to "jimmy" open the door and while trying to wrestle Ms Landry's phone away from her, her right arm hit the wall as Ms Landry was protecting the head of the baby she was holding at the time. Ms Landry recorded the incident on her mobile phone as well as photos of subsequent bruising.

The Magistrate accepted Ms Landry's account of the events she related to a local Police Station Domestic Violence officer, that Mr Bell had intimidated her during a "disturbing" and "chilling" incident at their Sydney harbour-front home,  However, he said he could not be satisfied beyond the balance of probabilities in her evidence relating to an earlier incident in 2012, that Mr Bell had fallen on top of her, put his hand around her throat and thrown her onto a bed. 

During the 4-day hearing, Ms Landy also accused her husband of controlling financial behaviour. The court heard Ms Landry once told a psychologist that she was paid "less than the nanny" despite that her husband is worth $100million. 

 

Wife called police and told them they "overreacted"

Mr Bell is a multimillionaire who was in the news earlier this year for claiming line honours in the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. The pair were seen embracing for the cameras while celebrating his victory in an embrace on Constitution Dock in the early hours of December 28. The court heard their marriage was in crisis by the end of that day.

Ms Landry had originally spoken to a local Sydney police station about an incident in the couple's home on November 18 last year, sometime before the yacht race.

At about 5.45pm, January 5, the same day police commenced proceedings against her husband, Kelly Landry rang to say they had 'overreacted'.

Ms Landry was upset and told police she did not want an AVO against Mr Bell, the court heard.

Under cross-examination by Ian Temby, QC, Senior Constable Farrell agreed Ms Landry was upset and did not want the AVO taken out but police went ahead with the AVO due to the concerns she had about the November 18 incident.

"Those concerns were that there had been an alleged assault in what she said to police", she told the court.

Sergeant Laura Nightingale, acting for Ms Landry, told Magistrate Robert Williams the relationship between Bell and Landry is clearly one that has involved violence.

“This is about one relationship which has the hallmarks of domestic violence,” she said.

“Domestic violence is something that is rarely displayed in a public forum, it is behind closed doors," she added.

 

But is it relevant? Does it Matter?

As always, cases are argued on documented fact and only on issues that are specifically RELEVANT to the case.

It is difficult for many of us to except in family law cases that often, that which feels so as though it should be considered relevant in fact, matters not.

Acting for Mr Bell, Barrister Ian Temby QC, said during his argument that the AVO hearing had become mired in topics that “matter not”.

“It matters not whether a thousand dollars per week was adequate spending money for the wife,” he said.

“Some would see it as fairly generous, it’s about the average male weekly wage in Australia. Some might see it as inadequate, it matters not. …

“It matters not what the prime cause of the breakup in Hobart was… You’ll remember that she sent a message which mentioned the first forename of a particular woman, and categorised my client’s relationship with that woman as “odd”. It looks as if that was jealousy and it may be jealous overreaction because she doesn’t seek to say it was more than “odd”.”

He said Ms Landry was instructing the police prosecutor “with the bullets she wanted fired” while his client was being cross-examined in court.

“None of that fits this case, there is nothing in the evidence which would give rise to a reasonable fear of intimidation as that word is defined,” he said.

 

Permanent AVO order rejected

Ms Landry and Mr Bell stopped living together after the dispute on the night of the yacht race and divorce proceedings have begun. Mr Bell's legal representation recently told reporters his client had said of his wife that "he never wants to see her again". 

Speaking about the November 2016 incident, Mr Wiliams said the evidence of the two was "clearly different, and there no witnesses". However, he said there was a number of inconsistencies in Mr Bell's evidence in court and the statement he gave to police.

Mr Williams found Ms Landry gave "credible" evidence of the event even though she endured a lengthy cross-examination.

However, he said it wasn't enough to determine Bell was "abusive" or "controlling" under the legal definition required for an AVO.

"It is clear on the evidence that the parties separated... the parties have lived separately and apart," he said. He added that Bell had not breached the interim AVO which had been in place since January.

He noted that the couple is involved in divorce proceedings and that there does not appear to be any issues with Bell having access to the couple's two children.

Mr Williams ruled after considering the evidence before him that it would not be appropriate to make a permanent order. "There appears to be little if no opportunity of future incidents," Mr Williams said.

Speaking to reporters outside the Court, Mr Bell said he's "looking forward to putting the case behind him."

Mr Bell said he was "pleased justice has prevailed, I'm very much looking forward to getting on with my life and my children's lives."

He believed it was important "to stand up to this" but he could understand why "some partners choose not to".

'This has been one of the most harrowing experiences for my family,' he said.

Importantly and admirably, he also stated that his children loved their mother and it was important that the couple "put the events of the past six months behind" them and "put their energies towards raising a couple of great kids".

Let's hope that is the case.

 

Read related articles:

 

Kelly Landry’s explosive statement to police in her AVO case against Anthony Bell

Kelly Landry's and Anthony Bell's 'dirty laundry' aired in court

Celebrity accountant Anthony Bell suffers early setback in AVO hearing