data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ea5cf/ea5cf508dc25a40663e56658d15531415c656ac9" alt="Nathanial Ladbrook, pictured here in 2016, was jailed for 22 months for attacks on his partner..."
Nathanial Charles David Ladbrook (32) appeared in the Dunedin District Court after pleading guilty to ill-treating an animal and injuring with intent to injure.
"This offending, in many regards, is odd. It’s an aberration and unusual in its ferocity," said Judge Emma Smith.
The first incident took place on March 13 when Ladbrook and his partner were in the lounge.
Believing the cat had bitten him, the defendant punched it twice in the head.
The pet hid under a bed and began having a seizure, court documents said.
When Ladbrook’s partner picked up the animal his violent rage was sparked again and he took the cat from her.
Once outside, he put it on the ground and stomped on its head, killing it.
On May 11, the couple were again at home when an argument arose around financial matters.
Ladbrook punched the victim in the face about 10 times, prompting the woman to raise her forearms in front of her face to parry the blows.
She was left with a bruised, swollen face and a chipped tooth.
Judge Smith called it "incredibly violent and vile offending".
Counsel Meg Scally said her client believed he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of childhood violence he sustained and cruelty to animals he had witnessed, but there was no independent verification of that before the court.
Ladbrook wanted to apologise to his partner, Ms Scally said, but he was uncertain about the future of their relationship.
The victim, in a written statement, said she felt like she could not trust the defendant but did not want to see him go to prison.
However, due to the lack of appropriate address for home detention, that was the only available option for the judge.
Ladbrook was jailed for 22 months and a protection order was issued in favour of the victim.
No animal ownership ban was imposed.
Judge Smith granted leave to have the matter recalled in court should the defendant find a property suitable for home detention.