STATE OF TASMANIA v ANEESHA MAREE LACKAY-GRAHAM 14 AUGUST 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE CUTHBERTSON J
Aneesha Lackay-Graham, you have been found guilty of a charge of wounding. You also pleaded guilty to a charge of code assault. Both of these offences were committed on 15 September 2024 during the course of an altercation at the Hobart waterfront area in the early hours of the morning. The complainants in relation to both of these charges are brothers, Isaiah and Danyon Tuttle. It follows from the jury’s verdict that they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were the person responsible for inflicting the wound on Isaiah that morning. It also follows from the jury’s verdict that you were not acting in self-defence at the time of inflicting that wound. The jury must have accepted beyond reasonable doubt that Isaiah Tuttle was an honest and reliable witness. As to the other charge, you did not dispute that you were the person responsible for assaulting Danyon Tuttle that night, but you denied holding a sharp instrument to his neck during the course of that assault. It falls to me to make factual findings consistent with the jury’s verdict in respect of the wounding charge and resolve the disputed facts on the assault charge based on the evidence I heard during the trial.
The two complainants were out that night with a number of friends drinking around the Hobart waterfront. At around 3:00am on 15 September 2024, the two brothers left the Salamanca area and headed towards the Observatory Bar with another friend. As they approached the Morrison Street carpark, they encountered a group of people who “mouthed off” at them. There were between three and five people in that group, including a female matching your description. I am not, however, able to find beyond reasonable doubt that you were with that first group of people. There was an exchange of words between the two groups. Shortly after this, a male in the group punched the complainants’ friend. Isaiah Tuttle intervened and punched him back. Danyon Tuttle tried to hold Isaiah and their friend back from further involving themselves in the altercation.
After this initial altercation, the complainants and their friend walked away. The complainants’ friend stopped to talk to someone on the corner of Murray Street and Morrison Street. The complainants continued walking up Murray Street. As they approached the corner of Despard Street, they were approached by a group of between 10-15 people. One of them was wearing a balaclava. A significant altercation followed. Much of what occurred on Murray Street was captured by CCTV and in a video taken on a mobile phone. It was a disturbing and confusing incident. The complainants were significantly outnumbered. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were part of that group, albeit that you were not initially engaged in the physical altercation.
At the commencement of the altercation as the group of people was running towards him, Isaiah found a bottle in the street and armed himself with it. He hit the person wearing the balaclava with it. The bottle eventually broke. At one point in the altercation, he was grabbed and assaulted by a number of people while his jumper was pulled over his head. He was hit multiple times to his head and body while being restrained. You were not involved in that part of the assault on Isaiah Tuttle. Once he got free, he moved back up Murray Street. As he approached the corner of Murray and Despard Streets, he was pursued by at least two females, one of whom was you. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Isaiah was attempting to leave the area at that stage. You approached him with your fist held up. You told him that if he did not leave now, you would stab him. You then cut his neck with a sharp implement you were holding. I am unable to find precisely what the implement was, but it did inflict the wound. The wound was half to one centimetre in length with some associated marks and subcutaneous emphysema. It did not breach the thin muscle layer that covers the neck, but penetrated the skin and went through the very superficial layer of subcutaneous tissue.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you returned to Murray Street where you then assaulted Danyon Tuttle a short time later. You have pleaded guilty to assaulting him on the basis that you held a fist to his neck but not a sharp implement. I am, however, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you did hold a sharp implement to Danyon Tuttle’s neck. He described feeling an implement of that kind on his neck. He was left with blood on his neck, which I am satisfied was blood left on the implement after you wounded Isaiah. The complainants’ friend Brock, who was standing nearby, also saw you holding a sharp implement. You were yelling at Danyon, “Are you his brother?” or “Was that your brother?”. Having viewed the footage, it is clear that you are holding Mr Tuttle’s hair while holding the object to his neck. Holding a sharp object to the neck of a person in those circumstances constitutes an assault by threatening gesture as well as an assault by direct application of force.
During the course of your record of interview, you told police that you had no memory of the events due to your level of intoxication. I do not accept that. Your appearance in the footage of the incident is inconsistent with such a claim. Your conduct appeared purposeful and aggressive. Having viewed your record of interview, I formed the distinct impression that your claim of having no recollection of the incident was not genuine. Nevertheless, you have maintained this claim in the submissions made on the sentencing hearing and in your interactions with Community Corrections.
The footage I have seen and the evidence I have heard depict a disturbing level of violence engaged in by a number of people involved in the altercation. Violent conduct in public places in the early hours of the morning is a matter of great concern to the community. It seems to me that the group of people who pursued the complainants up Murray Street, a group of which you were a member, was intent on exacting some sort of retribution for the earlier altercation. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainants and their friend were not the initial aggressors during either incident.
Wounding a person to the neck or holding a sharp implement to that area is an inherently dangerous thing to do. It is a vulnerable area of the body. There are a number of important blood vessels that are close to the surface of the neck that could be easily be cut by such a weapon. Isaiah Tuttle was clearly retreating from the altercation when you wounded him. Your assault of Danyon Tuttle was entirely unprovoked. He seems to have mostly been trying to keep people apart from each other and to calm things down.
I have received a victim impact statement from Isaiah Tuttle. It outlines that he has experienced lasting effects on his sense of safety since this incident. He experiences anxiety and hypervigilance in situations that previously felt normal and enjoyable. This has reduced his confidence and changed how he lives his life.
You are 21 years old. You were 19 years old at the time of this offending. You were born and raised in Tasmania. Your childhood was affected by your father’s family violence behaviours towards your mother. Your mother has mental health concerns, and your father was previously her carer. He was deported to New Zealand in 2017. You remained in your mother’s care but took on a number of caring responsibilities towards her from that time. You were only 12 years old. You now have a seven-month-old child of your own. You continue to live with your mother and child. Although you did not complete years 11 and 12 at school, you report good literacy and numeracy skills. You have expressed an interest in continuing your education at university. You have never held employment due to your caring responsibilities.
You have significant health issues of your own. You have a history of epilepsy related seizures since infancy and experience migraines. Medical records indicate you also have a history of cannabis use disorder. You have commenced, but not completed, the process to access medicinal cannabis. You previously abused prescription medication, particularly Xanax and Lyrica. While abusing these substances, you report experiencing significant anger, mental health decline and poor sleep. You consider your substance misuse to be a contributing factor to your offending.
Your record of prior offending is almost entirely comprised of youth justice matters. They are mainly shoplifting and related offences. They do include a common assault, a charge of wilfully obstructing a police officer and one of possessing a dangerous article, a meat mallet, in a public place. No convictions were recorded in respect of any of your youth justice matters. As an adult, you have been convicted of trespass, behaving in a violent manner, unlawfully possessing a dangerous article in a public place, namely a meat tenderiser, and two counts of contravene conditions of a notice. None are prior convictions, as all were dealt with after you were charged with these offences. Only the contravene conditions of a notice offences were committed after these offences.
You have been subject to strict curfew conditions since being charged and bailed by police on 2 October 2024. The conditions also prevented you for entering particular areas of the Hobart CBD and waterfront. Earlier this year, your father died in New Zealand. Your bail conditions were varied to enable you to return to New Zealand to bring his remains home to Tasmania. No doubt this was a very distressing time for you and your family.
I obtained a report from Community Corrections to assist with the sentencing process. You have been assessed as suitable for a community-based order. You are unsuitable for the imposition of community service due to your full-time caring responsibilities for your mother and infant child and your own health issues. You are, however, suitable for the community-based supervision. You have been assessed as having high risk and needs. If such an order were imposed, Community Corrections propose that case management would focus on addressing your substance use issues, anger management and your social contact risk. They also propose to support you towards your goal of continuing your education.
Engaging in such meaningless violence in a public place is a serious matter. Your use of weapon is of particular concern. There was absolutely no justification for your violence towards either of these complainants. I recognise that your conduct was in the context of a much larger altercation and that you were not involved in all aspects of it. You were part of the group that initiated the violence and outnumbered the two complainants and their friends. You became involved at a stage when neither of the two complainants were acting as aggressors. Isaiah Tuttle, as I said, was attempting to leave the area. Danyon Tuttle appeared to be trying to reason with people and to calm things down.
You committed these offences nearly two years ago. Apart from the two charges of contravening the conditions of a notice by breaching the area exclusion order imposed by police very shortly after you were bailed, you have not being charged with any further offences. Your increased responsibilities towards your child and the strict bail conditions appear to have assisted you to moderate your behaviour and turn your life around. You are not entitled to the mitigatory effect of a plea of guilty. There is no indication that you are remorseful for your conduct. It seems to me that you would benefit from the supervision of Community Corrections to help address the underlying causes of your behaviour on this occasion and assist you to develop greater insight. Taking into account all matters including the seriousness of the offences, the need to deter you and others from acting in a like way again in the future and to acknowledge the harm that was caused by your conduct, it is appropriate that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed. Given your young age, your personal circumstances and what I consider to be good prospects of rehabilitation, I am satisfied it is not necessary to impose an actual period of imprisonment upon you on this occasion. The period of imprisonment I intend to impose will be wholly suspended. It will be a condition of suspension that you submit to the supervision of a probation officer.
Aneesha Lackay-Graham, you are convicted on both charges on the indictment. I impose one sentence of six months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of two years on the following conditions:
- You must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment; and
- You are subject to the supervision of a probation officer.
As the suspended sentences is conditional on your supervision by a probation officer, the order is subject to the core conditions of a community correction order, which are set out at s 42AO(b) to (f) of the Sentencing Act. They will be provided to you in writing. You must report to a probation officer at the office of Community Corrections in Hobart by 4.00pm today. You must report to a probation officer as required by the probation officer and comply with their reasonable and lawful directions. You must not leave, or remain outside, Tasmania without the permission of a probation officer and you must notify of any change of address or employment within two working days after the change. In addition to the core conditions, the order will also include the following special conditions that you must, during the two year operational period of the supervision order:
- submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer;
- undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer;
- submit to testing for drug use as directed by a probation officer;
- submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer; and
- attend educational and other programs as directed by a probation officer.
If you breach the condition that you must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during the operational period of the order, the sentence must be activated unless it would be unjust. If you breach any other condition of the suspended sentence, you are liable to be brought back before the Court and resentenced, including by the activation of the suspended sentence.