STATE OF TASMANIA v JOSHUA LEIGH EYLES 12 AUGUST 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Joshua Leigh Eyles, who was 19 years of age at the time of offending, has pleaded guilty to one count of assault by punching the complainant to the face, contrary to s 184 of the Criminal Code Act 1924. The complainant is Sebastian Giuseppe Nicholaski, who was 19 years of age at the time.
On 31 December 2021, the complainant was in Hobart at around 10.30 pm, with friends. He was at the Obar and he danced with a Ms Ella McKenzie. Whilst dancing with the complainant, Ms McKenzie took a photograph of herself and the complainant and sent it to Dillon Branch on SnapChat. It is asserted that Dillon Branch was upset with the complainant for dancing with Ms McKenzie as he had a romantic interest in her.
On 1 January 2022, at about 2.30 am, the complainant was walking with Lachlan Greenhill through Salamanca Place when Dillon Branch approached them and pushed the complainant. Mr Greenhill attempted to defuse the situation by separating Dillon Branch from the complainant but at this time, the defendant approached the group and threatened Mr Greenhill and the complainant. Mr Greenhill and the complainant attempted to walk away but the defendant and Dillon Branch continued to follow them.
Mr Branch approached the complainant and was directly in front of him and the defendant moved to the side of the complainant, who was attempting to back away from Mr Branch. The defendant then punched the complainant to the left side of his jaw with his right fist. As a result of the punch, the complainant suffered a mandibular fracture, which required surgery to insert plates and screws to secure the jaw together. He had two teeth removed and braces placed on his upper and lower teeth. He may suffer from longstanding numbness and poor bite.
On 11 February 2022, police attended and executed a search warrant at the defendant’s Bothwell residence. Police seized clothes and took him to the Hobart Police Station, where he participated in a video record of interview. During that interview, he stated that he was drunk on the night, that he knows the complainant from football, that he did not think that he had hit him hard, that he should not have done what he did and he regrets it.
The defendant was placed under arrest and was bailed. He appeared on 9 June in the Hobart Magistrates Court and entered a plea of guilty in relation to the complaint against him at a relatively early stage. I have had read to me a lengthy victim impact statement. The complainant has ongoing pain, swelling and scarring from the surgery. He has been left mentally depressed and has suffered financially, career wise and sports wise. He has lost his confidence and is afraid to go out.
The defendant has a close and supportive family. He is exposed to a stable family life and role models who are hard working. He attended St Virgils College, completing Year 10. He commenced Year 11 at Claremont College before taking up a job as an apprentice electrician. He has yet to complete the apprenticeship, however he has just commenced work at Incat and is to be fast-tracked back into the apprenticeship. The offending occurred at a time of personal issues for the defendant. The defendant went to Mr Branch’s aid, believing that he needed help and struck the complainant. However, that is of obvious little import given the nature of the assault. It does, nonetheless, contraindicate pre-meditation.
At the time of the commission of the crime, the defendant was 19 years old and is to be treated as a youthful offender. I also take into account his plea of guilty. The defendant’s country football club, as part of its well-being programme, welcomed a representative from rural, allied and well, with the acronym RAW, to talk to its members. As a result of that, the defendant was engaged with RAW and is working with counsellors from that organisation to deal with is actions and the consequences of them.
I have seen a report from RAW as to the defendant’s engagement with them and I take that into account. I further take into account that the defendant does not go out into the city anymore and although he attends functions at the football club, he stays only long enough to be polite and then leaves. I am told that he does not now drink alcohol to excess and is attempting to surround himself with good people and continue to do good work in the community.
I accept that the assault is out of character and is unlikely to be repeated. However, drunken assaults by young men in the early hours of the morning occur far too frequently and can have devastating and even fatal consequences. General deterrence is a prominent feature in sentencing in such cases because of that.
In all of the circumstances and, in particular, given the defendant’s youth and obvious remorse, the defendant is convicted and is sentenced to nine month’s imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of three years. I gave consideration to community service in addition to this sentence, but I regard the defendant’s past and ongoing involvement with RAW as the equivalent of engagement in a programme through community service, as is sometimes offered, such as the EQUIPS programme, for example, in the context of domestic violence.