STATE OF TASMANIA v COREY GRAHAM VINCENT 31 AUGUST 2020
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Corey Graham Vincent, has pleaded guilty to three counts of assault on two separate indictments. He was 23 years old at the time of the offending.
The complainants the subject of the first indictment are Paul Stevens and Teddy Kadisha both of whom were 21 years old at the time. They were not known to the defendant.
On Friday 21 December 2018, Mr Kadisha was drinking with friends in the Hobart waterfront area for his end of year work function. Shortly after midnight on the Saturday he was walking with a group of friends near the Salamanca taxi rank on Castray Esplanade when he was approached by the defendant and a group of males. Mr Kadisha, heard racist remarks being directed at him from the group and believed the group of males were attempting to provoke a fight.
Mr Stevens, who was on the way to Despard Street, to meet up with Mr Kadisha asked what was happening and was told that the group of males were trying to provoke a fight. Another racist remark was directed at both men from the group and a verbal altercation broke out.
The defendant approached Mr Stevens from behind and threw him to the ground. While Mr Stevens was on his knees on the ground the defendant kicked him to the face. Mr Stevens was rendered unconscious lying face down on the ground. Mr Kadisha went to his aid and crouched down next to him.
The defendant walked up to Mr Kadisha, and punched him to the right side of his face. Mr Kadisha tried to get away from the defendant and moved towards the intersection of Castray Esplanade and Gladstone Street but the defendant continued to punch him multiple times to the head with both of his fists. The defendant pulled Mr Kadisha’s shirt off him and then walked away. A further altercation between Mr Kadisha and the defendant erupted before being quickly broken up by attending police officers and bystanders.
One witness filmed the assaults on his mobile phone and showed the footage to attending police. I have viewed that footage.
Neither Mr Stevens nor Mr Kadisha received medical treatment immediately following the event. As a result of the kick and subsequent striking of his head on the ground, Mr Stevens suffered a sore right jaw, bruising to the left side of his face and an abrasion above his right eye.
No injuries were reported by Mr Kadisha.
In the following days both Mr Stevens and Mr Kadisha reported to police that they had identified the defendant as the person that assaulted them using Facebook.
The defendant first appeared in the Magistrates Court in relation to the charges on 24 April 2019 and entered a not guilty plea in respect of the charge relating to Mr Stevens and the charge of common assault relating to Mr Kadisha, was adjourned sine die.
He was committed to appear in the Hobart Supreme Court for first directions hearing on 14 October 2019. In November 2019, his counsel indicated to the State that the matter would resolve by way of a guilty plea. That indication was confirmed in Court on 3 February 2020.
In respect of the second indictment, the complainant is Joshua Brian Mayo. He was also aged 21 at the time of the offending. The defendant and the complainant were not known to each other.
The defendant was on Magistrates Court bail at the time of the offending, having appeared in the Magistrates Court on 24 April 2019 in relation to the assault charges just described.
At approximately 4.30am on Sunday 28 April 2019, the complainant was outside the front entrance of the Observatory Bar in the company of three friends. At the same time, the defendant and a group of males were gathered together outside the front entrance of the bar.
The defendant spoke to the complainant’s friend. The complainant told the defendant to leave him alone and the defendant walked away towards the water.
The defendant then took off his jacket and handed it to an unknown male. He approached the complainant and punched him to the side of the head.
Upon being punched, the complainant fell backwards towards the ground, striking his head on the ground. During the fall, the complainant’s ankle twisted underneath him. Due to the sudden nature and force of the punch, he did not use his arms to break his fall.
The complainant was rendered unconscious, laying on his back, and remained unconscious on the ground for approximately 5 minutes.
The complainant was taken by ambulance to the Royal Hobart Hospital. As a result of the punch, subsequent striking of his head on the ground and his ankle being twisted underneath him, he suffered a bruise on his left temple, memory loss, and a fracture dislocation of his right ankle consistent with the complainant falling with an inturned foot. On 30 April 2019, he underwent surgery to relocate his ankle. He was in hospital for five days.
The defendant was committed to appear in the Supreme Court for first directions hearing on the 3 February 2020,and on that appearance it was indicated that the matter would resolve by way of a guilty plea.
I have seen a victim impact statement from Mr Mayo. He suffered from concussion and a dislocated and broken ankle, as I have said. The concussion left him without memory of most of the night and with severe headaches for a month after the incident. He was on pain medication for 6 weeks afterwards to help with the headaches.
The dislocation and fracture to his ankle meant he had a cast on for a month and a moon boot for another 5 months. It inhibited him from putting any weight on it for 4 months and he has still not completely recovered. He has not been able to return to his occupation as a diver yet because of his injuries, and has suffered considerable financial loss. His mental health has been affected and he has suffered from depression over the last 2 months of his recovery
The defendant has no prior convictions for assault. His record is reflective of his use of alcohol from a young age, and his tendency towards poor decision making under the influence of alcohol.
He was residing with his partner of approximately 18 months and has no children. He now lives independently. He describes a strong bond with his partner’s parents, and siblings, and a strong relationship with his mates and gets along well with his co-workers. He is a qualified Carpenter. He has an excellent work history, and describes a strong work ethic, and pride in his achievement. He is in good physical health, he is a light smoker, and now drinks alcohol only rarely. He recalls a head injury that hospitalised him when he was 18, but cannot say if any symptoms he experiences can be attributed to this.
The most significant event of his formative years occurred when he was 12 years old. His step-father Andrew Duggan was stabbed to death in front of him. He describes hiding in bushes in close proximity to where it occurred, and watching as his step-father died.
The defendant suffered constant physical abuse in the care of his mother from as far back as he can remember, one of his first memories of her smashing his face so hard into a plate of vegemite sandwiches that it smashed. He had not started school at that time and that was simply for not wanting to eat vegemite.
I have had the benefit of a FMHS report from Clinical psychologist Dr David Tuck. He advises me that:
“With reference to Your Honour’s requested area of focus, it is evident that Mr Vincent likely meets the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. However, given his tendency to exaggerate psychopathology and his efforts to manage the impression that he gives in interview, the exact intricacies and magnitude of his symptoms is difficult to articulate with any clinical certainty.
In any event, the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder that are experienced by Mr Vincent do not offer a causal explanation for the offending behaviour for which he is currently before the Court.
As stated in his interview, the material events were consistent with a trajectory of self-destructive behaviours, resulting from his effective hyperreactivity and hyperarousal, and his exposure to and familiarity with violence, exacerbated by significant alcohol and stimulant intoxication.”
Mr Tuck noted that it was unfortunate that Mr Vincent does not see any merit in engaging with a suitably qualified mental health professional.
With reference to the principles of Verdins, Dr Tuck is of the view that in his clinical opinion, none of the limbs are enlivened by Mr Vincent’s psychopathology.
Dr Tuck also notes that the statements made to him by the defendant, in some respects, are inconsistent with “feelings of shame and regret” expressed in the draft mitigation submissions.
As against that the defendant’s counsel Ms Morgan informs that the defendant recently recognised that he needed to come to terms with his past, and accept the limitations of his parents, and their failure to protect him as a child, and young adult. He instructs that he has now found the capacity to forgive his mother and to recognise that he is responsible for his own healing.
Ms Morgan informs me that the defendant describes an understanding and acceptance that he will have a life time of managing his mental health and working on his emotional regulation, and that his own trauma responses should not put others at risk. He is confident that he has made some significant improvements in his emotional regulation. He has reduced his alcohol consumption. He has been medicated for his insomnia and his sleep has improved markedly, and this in turn has improved his mood. He has been working on finding another psychologist with whom he can develop a long term therapeutic relationship.
I am informed that the defendant has read the Victim Impact Statement of the complainant, Mr Mayo, and describes feeling terrible that his overreaction to a situation he did not need to involve himself in resulted in such a complex and drastic effect on the life of the person hit. He describes feelings of shame and regret for what has happened to Mr Mayo.
I sought a report on the defendant’s suitability for home detention. He is not considered suitable. Nor is he suitable for community service.
He is in employment and is taking steps to address his problems, as I have indicated. He has also pleaded guilty to these assaults and is entitled to an appropriate discount on an otherwise appropriate sentence for having done so.
He has been assessed utilising as requiring a high level of supervision from Community Corrections. Bearing this in mind, a 12 month supervision period is recommended with a particular focus on mental health, behaviour and drug counselling.
The defendant is convicted of three counts of assault and I impose a single sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspended for a period of two years on condition that he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment within that period.
In addition, I make a community correction order for a period of one year from today, which, in addition to the core conditions specified in the Act, will contain special conditions that:
- the defendant, during the operational period of the order, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by that officer;
- the defendant, during the operational period of the order, submit to medical, psychological and psychiatric assessment and treatment as directed by a probation officer;
- the defendant, during the operational period of the order, submit to such drug and alcohol counselling as directed by a probation officer.
Given the lateness of the hour Ms Morgan, I direct that Mr Vincent attend at Community Corrections tomorrow, by close of business, to advise them that a community corrections order has been made.