‘Thug’ seeks a lighter sentence
Geelong West man appeals two-year term for attack
A Geelong West man jailed for a “cowardly” unprovoked attack and labelled by a judge as a “thug” has asked the Supreme Court for a lighter sentence.
Jok Gar and co-accused Tyler De Silva approached a man in Melbourne’s CBD on September 6, 2022, demanding his wallet and phone.
The pair knocked the man out after he refused to hand over the items, and left him unconscious and bleeding from a partially severed ear.
Gar was jailed for two years in December after pleading guilty to the robbery and recklessly causing injury, while De Silva received a six-month jail sentence, followed by a lengthy community corrections order.
Supreme Court judges Karin Emerton and David Beach heard Gar’s appeal against his sentence on Tuesday.
Gar’s lawyer, Christopher Wareham, told the court the
appeal was based on two grounds – parity and manifest excess.
Gar had a “justifiable sentence of grievance” over the difference in sentences between himself and De Silva, Mr Wareham said, stating there was a “manifestly excessive difference in the sentences”.
Mr Wareham argued Gar’s sentence should not have exceeded De Silva’s, as De Silva was the “first to engage in violence”, had “significant prior history” and was, at the time, also due to be sentenced for an unrelated offence from the same day in September 2022.
The court heard De Silva had an intellectual disability and diagnoses of attention deficit disorder (ADHD), autism, tubular sclerosis complex, and childhood epilepsy and had an IQ of just 48.
Mr Wareham also argued Gar’s age had not been fully appreciated in the sentence.
“He was 19 at the time of the offence, he was 20 at the time he fell to be sentenced,” Mr Wareham said, adding his client had an “extraordinarily limited criminal history” at the time off the attack and went from having no prior convictions to being jailed for two years, a “significant step”.
The court heard Gar’s sentencing judge Frances Hogan found he had “no insight into his offending or the causes of his offending”, had “very poor” prospects of rehabilitation and was a high risk of further violent offending.
Greg Buchhorn, for the prosecution, argued Gar’s sentence was “quite lenient”, given a “compelling number of aggravating features”.
Mr Buchhorn said De Silva’s situation was unique “in the true sense of the word” and said his situation was “unheard of in many respects”.
It was “clear” why De Silva received the sentence he did, Mr Buchhurn said, while in Gar’s case, he was an active and willing participant in the attack and “nothing reduced his moral culpability”.
Mr Buchhorn said it was “terrifying ordeal” for the victim, and noted the sentencing judge specifically said if Gar had been older his sentence would have been much greater.
Ms Emerton and Mr Beach reserved their decision, to be handed down at a later date.