STATE OF TASMANIA v DARREN TASMAN HAAS 27 FEBRUARY 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Darren Haas, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to one count of assault in that in the early hours of 21 May 2022 he assaulted Paul Lucock by punching him to the head and face. The facts are as follows. The two men had known each other for about 20 years but as at the day of the offending, they had not seen each for about two years. On 20 May 2022 Mr Lucock and his partner visited the defendant and his wife at their home. They watched football on TV and drank alcohol. At about 1.30 the next morning the two men had an argument about religion. After a short time, the two began to playfully wrestle but this became more aggressive. The defendant fell to the ground and Mr Lucock said he did not want to continue. He left and walked away a short distance from the house. The defendant also left and the two men ended up moving towards each other when a short distance away from the house. Further wrestling took place as a result of which Mr Lucock fell to the ground hitting the back of his head in the process, causing a temporary loss of consciousness. The defendant then sat on him and punched him to the face and head about six to seven times using both fists. Mr Lucock extracted himself, walked away and called police. The defendant was arrested and detained overnight due to his intoxication. When interviewed the next morning he described an incident in the kitchen after which the two men went outside and argued while pushing and shoving each other. He admitted hitting Mr Lucock with a closed fist about six times. Mr Lucock was treated at the hospital and he was found to be suffering an inferior orbital floor fracture and a herniated inferior rectus muscle. He continues to complain of pain and generalised double vision. There is a current referral for corrective surgery although no indication at present that such surgery will be required. In his victim impact statement he describes being disappointed and shocked about what happened, having been friends for many years. He says he previously suffered from anxiety for which he took medication, and this incident has exacerbated his anxiety and caused panic attacks. He has been unemployed but has made attempts to complete higher education diplomas but feels his coping skills have been adversely affected because he cannot concentrate, and has sleeping problems and migraines.
The defendant is now 47 years old. He has no relevant prior convictions but up until 2011 he incurred penalties for a number of traffic offences culminating in an order for community service in September 2011 for a drink driving offence. He is a married man having been with his current wife for some 13 years and between the two, they have six children ranging between 8 and 27 years old, four of whom are at home. I have the benefit of counsel’s submissions and a pre-sentence report. The defendant has a good industrial record. He has a background in retail industry but is now self-employed having acquired a small business and is developing that. As to the offending, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the wrestling outside which saw Mr Lucock fall to the ground, was in effect, the defendant acting in self-defence as he believed it was necessary in the circumstances. It was put that he did not perceive that Mr Lucock lost consciousness but he accepts that he heard “a significant sound” which I infer was Mr Lucock’s head hitting the ground. However, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was in fact aware of a loss of consciousness before punching Mr Lucock while he was on the ground. I cannot be so satisfied on the evidence. On any view of things, given the respective positions of the two men, it was completely unnecessary for the defendant to use any violence, let alone punch Mr Lucock to that extent in the head and face. The defendant reported to the probation officer that alcohol was a main contributor to this offending. Since the time of the offence, he has ceased all alcohol use and explained that he has become a better husband and father without it. He expressed regret and remorse for his offending and says that he is embarrassed by his conduct. As noted there is no recorded history of violence and counsel put that the defendant has never been in a fight before. I take into account the plea of guilty. I accept that it in this case it is indicative of remorse and in any event has practical value for all of which the defendant is to be given credit in the sentencing process. I also accept that these proceedings have had a salutary effect on him.
All forms of violence are unacceptable. This seems to have been a drunken argument between old friends that got seriously out of hand. The defendant’s conduct in delivering a number of blows to the head and face while Mr Lucock was on the ground is most reprehensible. Any perceived need for self-defence must have then ended, as the defendant accepts. Attempting to deter others from the use of violence is an important factor. I accept that it is unlikely the defendant will reoffend. However, the sentence needs to mark the seriousness of the crime. I take into account the plea and the defendant’s lack of recorded violent offending. I note that the defendant has been assessed as suitable for community service but that is subject to a medical clearance because of the hernia from which he suffers. Accordingly there is uncertainty about that as a realistic sentencing option or component of the sentence.
Mr Haas, I set out the facts of the matter and the relevant considerations. I do not think I need to add anything. I take the view that a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate but that the execution of the whole of that sentence can properly be suspended on conditions. You are convicted of the crime and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment the execution of the whole of which is suspended on condition you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 18 months. I need to warn you that that condition means precisely what it says. It is any offence punishable by imprisonment and that includes drink driving offences and many other offences.