R v Eyre

[2015] NSWDC 385

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Eyre [2015] NSWDC 385
Hearing dates:	22 May 2015
Date of orders:	22 May 2015
Decision date:	22 May 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment. Impose a non-parole period of 3 years with a head sentence of 5 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Reckless wounding – Specific deterrence
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Aaron Robert EYRE
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown Ramsland Laidler
File Number(s):	2014/27784

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: At one stage the offender, Aaron Robert Eyre and the person whom he later stabbed, Joshua Harrow, were quite good friends. They had a falling out over the loan of some tools. The offender claimed that Mr Harrow had not returned all the tools which he borrowed. Whether he did or not is impossible to determine, but even if the offender was correct, nothing could possibly justify his response.

2. The offender and Mr Harrow lived in the same suburb. Sometime after the falling out Mr Harrow went to visit a friend of his, Mr Richard Gardiner, who lived in the same villa complex as the offender. Mr Gardiner was not home so Mr Harrow sat on the porch, waiting for him and drinking. As he waited he noticed the offender, amongst other people, outside a flat a short distance away. All of a sudden Mr Harrow saw the offender appear. Mr Harrow stood up and was stabbed by the offender repeatedly. Blood squirted everywhere. Mr Harrow managed to get away and run the short distance to his home where he discovered that his mobile phone battery was flat and that he was bleeding quite heavily. Accordingly he went to a neighbour who summonsed both the ambulance and police through a triple 0 call.

3. Mr Harrow gave evidence in court that the offender stabbed him with a knife, but to police soon after the events I have just described, he said he was not sure if it was a screwdriver or a knife. Although it probably does not matter the nature of the injuries which I will soon describe to Mr Harrow clearly suggest the accuracy of the evidence Mr Harrow gave in court, that is that he was stabbed by Mr Eyre with a knife.

4. The offender was arrested that night. He was not interviewed for some time because he was seen to be deeply asleep, later explaining that this was because his girlfriend had slipped him two tablets of his anxiety medication as he was being arrested. When he was eventually interviewed by police he told a very different story to the one Mr Harrow told, claiming that he was the victim in the matter and that the wounds that Mr Harrow had suffered must have been caused by him rolling on the knife while they were both wrestling on the ground. By their verdict the jury have clearly rejected the version given by the accused and accepted beyond reasonable doubt Mr Harrow’s evidence as to how he came to be wounded. It is of course on that basis that I will sentence the offender. I will sentence him on the basis that he, without warning, approached Mr Harrow and stabbed him a number of times.

5. There were three wounds and a smaller scratch all to the left side of Mr Harrow’s body and arm. Of course therefore the offender used the knife multiple times. The doctor who reviewed Mr Harrow after he had been treated in the emergency department gave evidence about those injuries. One of the wounds was 8 centimetres long and was deep enough to expose the muscle, a depth of perhaps 1 to 2 centimetres. Another injury was 4 centimetres long which penetrated about 1 centimetre, not down to the muscle, with a third significant wound being 2.5 centimetres long, that also not being deep enough to penetrate to any of the deeper structures such as the ribs or muscle.

6. The photographs of those wounds show that a significant number of sutures were required. Mr Harrow was kept in hospital overnight and left hospital about 6.00 pm on the following day. The doctor who gave evidence had not reviewed Mr Harrow since then but felt at the time that he did see him that the prognosis was good with no disability anticipated.

7. The Crown today tendered a victim impact statement in which Mr Harrow does claim residual difficulties of a physical kind. In view of the medical evidence I am not satisfied that the consequences for Mr Harrow are as bad, at least physically, as he describes. When giving evidence in the trial Mr Harrow in my view exaggerated the injuries that he had received and so I will sentence Mr Eyre on the basis of the medical evidence as to what would be anticipated from injuries of the kind the doctor saw rather than the physical consequences that Mr Harrow claims in his victim impact statement.

8. Of course Mr Harrow speaks also of psychological consequences. I have no trouble at all accepting that a person who has been stabbed in circumstances such as Mr Harrow described would have ongoing psychological consequences, would be more anxious, would be less likely to go out. Such consequences for a victim of violence, a victim of a stabbing, are commonplace and entirely to be expected from actions such as those of the offender in this case.

9. Quite clearly this was a serious offence and the evidence well justified the verdict of guilty to the charge of reckless wounding. The community is rightfully concerned about the use of weapons to settle disputes and in the circumstances of this case the offender’s attack upon Mr Harrow represented a significant breach of the peace, the effects of which went far beyond simply wounding Mr Harrow.

10. A number of people were around when the stabbing took place and a number of people were around to view the consequences for Mr Harrow.

11. In assessing the objective gravity of the offence of course a significant factor to be considered is the nature of the injuries, I have already spoken about that. The objective seriousness of offences of reckless wounding require more than a consideration of the nature of injuries inflicted. In this case it has to be remembered that the offender stabbed Mr Harrow repeatedly without warning. It is fortunate in the extreme both Mr Harrow and the offender that the injuries were not more significant.

12. The offence has a maximum penalty of seven years with a standard non‑parole period of three years. I have taken both the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period into account in determining the sentence that I have decided to impose upon the offender.

13. He has a lengthy criminal history including offences of violence. His prospects of rehabilitation, I am satisfied, are poor. He continues to commit criminal offences, including offences of violence despite sentences of some significance having been imposed upon him in the past. At the time of this offending he was working which is very much a positive thing to be said in his favour, but unfortunately there is little to suggest that the offender would act any differently if similar circumstances presented themselves in the future. There is, for example, no evidence of remorse. There is no evidence that the offender is sorry for what he did. Indeed he continues to claim and maintain a version of events which is completely contrary to the verdict of the jury.

14. I have been assisted by a number of reports tendered today, a presentence report, a Justice Health report and a report from a psychologist. Of course a large part of history recorded in those reports comes from the offender himself. The psychological report reveals that the offender told the psychologist a number of very distressing things about his upbringing but in the same interview he also claimed that he was only saying a number of those things to reduce the likely sentence he would get. Take for example his claim to have been sexually assaulted as a child. He disclosed this, apparently for the first time, in preparation of reports leading up to these proceedings. How am I supposed to know whether he is telling the truth or not? Mr Eyre did not give evidence in the sentence proceedings before me, so all I have is untested statements in a document. Indeed the psychologist herself said this:

“I am unclear how accurate the events Aaron described are.”

15. On the other hand his very presentation is, as the psychologist recognised, indicative of an upbringing which, to say the least, was challenging. The psychologist continued after the passage I have just quoted by saying:

“Nevertheless his presentation in interview and profile and assessment indicated a man who has experienced significant trauma which remains unresolved.”

16. I am prepared to accept that finding of the psychologist whatever the precise nature of the trauma that the offender has experienced. I also accept that the offender is currently experiencing major depression and anxiety. That is a factor which will mean that the offender does his time in custody harder than a person who is mentally well. It also means that there should be less weight given to the need for general deterrence, although that must still remain an important part of this sentencing exercise.

17. I cannot see how major depression and anxiety significantly affects the offender’s moral culpability at the time he committed the offence and so I will not take that factor into account to any great extent.

18. As I was reminded this morning this offence is one which is within the jurisdiction of the Local Court, however it would have been quite wrong for the matter to have been dealt with in that Court. This was an offence of such seriousness that the jurisdictional limit in the Local Court is exceeded by a significant extent.

19. I mentioned before that I will give less weight than normal to the principles of general deterrence but specific deterrence remains a matter of prime importance. I spoke briefly about the offender’s lengthy history of offences, including offences of violence. He has harmed Mr Harrow in a very violent manner. I have to choose a sentence which will deter him from acting that way in the future. I have already mentioned the absence of remorse or any other evidence indicating that the offender is likely to change his attitude towards violence upon release from custody, and so specific deterrence is of even more importance in this case than in many others.

20. I will make a finding of special circumstances as the offender asks. His depression and panic disorder, while not a significant factor in the commission of this offence, still do need to be the subject of some treatment upon the offender’s release from custody. However the non-parole period I will shortly announce is, I am satisfied, the least which properly reflects all the circumstances of the case before me.

21. The offender has been in custody since the date of his arrest on 29 January 2014, so his sentence of imprisonment will commence from that day. I impose a sentence of imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of three years, to date from that day 29 January 2014 with a head sentence of five years. The non-parole period will thus expire on 28 January 2017 on which day the offender is eligible to be released to parole.

**********

Decision last updated: 23 March 2016