STATE OF TASMANIA v GEORGINA ELIZABETH CARTER 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE GEASON J
Ms Carter, you appear before the Court today for sentence on a charge of wounding. That offence was committed on 23 December last year at a drinking establishment in Hobart. You were at that venue through the course of the afternoon and into the evening for a Christmas function. You were with your partner. The complainant was also at the venue, at another table, with another group of people. There was some interaction between the two groups over the afternoon but no problems between you.
Later in the evening, the complainant raised a glass with two women seated at your table, before moving away. His gesture was a friendly, non-threatening one, similar to that which occurs when a glass is raised to mark a special occasion. You and another person got up from the table and spoke to him. His friends were standing nearby. A verbal disagreement broke out between one of your group and those friends of the complainant.
Your partner approached the complainant’s friends and grabbed one of them by the head, before punching him. He picked up a stool, appearing to be about to throw it. This caused the complainant to intervene. He took the stool from your partner before moving away towards his friends. A few seconds later, your partner threw a punch in the direction of the complainant. You then lunged at the complainant, and struck him with a wine glass you were holding.
The complainant recalls hearing squealing or screaming and then feeling the heat to his face. He was bleeding and unable to open his left eye.
He left the area and moved towards the street. A friend stood with him and contacted police and called an ambulance.
Apparently a brawl then developed between your group of friends and the complainant’s friends. CCTV footage of those events was captured on cameras and provided to police. That footage is said by the State to show that you continued to behave aggressively after you had struck the complainant. You are not charged with anything after the act of wounding the complainant, and I have regard to that evidence only to the extent that it exposes your general demeanour at the time.
You were interviewed by police. You did not deny your actions, indicating that the events were a blur and you had little or no recollection.
By your plea of guilty, you have admitted the essential elements of this offence. In my view, your actions were impulsive. I am satisfied that you were aware that you had the glass in your hand when you struck the complainant, and that you did so in the belief that some action was required on your behalf in order to show support to your partner. That view, I suspect, was a gross misjudgement caused by your alcohol consumption.
I am satisfied on the basis of your plea that no issue of self-defence is asserted, and I am objectively satisfied that none arises. I have no doubt that your behaviour was contributed to significantly by your excessive consumption of alcohol, but you should be very concerned if it exhibits an underlying propensity to aggressive behaviour. No doubt you will continue to reflect on your behaviour as you must if you are to learn from this experience.
You appear before the Court without prior conviction. You are entitled to claim that you are a person of good character. Such a proposition is supported by the character references which I have received and read, and to which I have regard. I also accept that you are a hardworking person who has diligently pursued your career, and that you have had some success in that respect. I accept that you are remorseful for your actions. I accept that you are unable to explain how it is that you resorted to this behaviour on this evening. But your actions carried with them the risk of grave injury. It is merely good fortune that more serious injury was not sustained by the complainant.
I have read the victim impact statement, and note that, fortunately, any ongoing physical consequences of your conduct are minor. It seems that the episode has upset and frightened the complainant, and had an emotional impact upon him. That is not surprising.
I note your plea of guilty, and that it was made at an early stage. I will discount the penalty I would otherwise impose by 15%. That is for the utilitarian benefit of your plea, a matter which has nothing to do with remorse or the strength of the Crown case. It is the benefit which accrues to the administration of justice, and that benefit is realised, whatever may be said about the strength of the case against you.
I am satisfied that the need for personal deterrence is not as great as will sometimes be the case, and that is because of your personal circumstances and the qualities about which I have heard. The effect of these proceedings, the possible impact on your employment, and the worry that goes with that, will, in my view, have had a salutary effect upon you. It is the need for general deterrence which requires more careful consideration. General deterrence serves to deter others from behaving similarly. I accept that moderation of behaviour is more difficult to achieve by means of the sentencing process when the behaviour is impulsive. But there is an educational component to this. Through the imposition and promulgation of sentencing outcomes, with appropriate emphasis on the general deterrence aspect, people become aware that certain behaviour carries with it serious consequences for them, and the risk of those consequences causes moderation in behaviour. That is particularly important in this type of case.
The sentencing response in your case is one which recognises the seriousness of your conduct and punishes you for it; which vindicates your victim and recognises that he has suffered as a consequence of your actions; and which deters others. It will take account of your otherwise good character, and it will reflect the fact that you have shown industry and purpose in your life. And it will view this conduct as an aberration.
In order to meet each of those sentencing considerations, the appropriate penalty is a short term of imprisonment. I have decided that because this conduct is so out of character, and that you are otherwise a person of good character, such sentence of imprisonment should be suspended. In order to impose a punitive element, however, I have decided to condition the suspension of the sentence upon your performance of community work. In my view, you are suitable for such work, and, accordingly, I do not intend to request a formal assessment. The condition upon which I will suspend the term of imprisonment is that you must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years. If you do, an application could be made to activate the sentence of imprisonment that I have just imposed, and you might be required to serve that term of imprisonment.
The order of the Court, Ms Carter, is that you are sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. I suspend the whole of that penalty on condition that you perform 80 hours of community service work, and commit no offence for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed, for a period of two years. In order to give effect to that you will need to attend at Community Corrections at Highfield House, and I direct you to do so within the next 48 hours for the purpose of arrangements being made for you to undertake the community work that I have imposed upon you.