Axe attacker ‘a victim too’

Husband appeals sentence

A HOBART man who attacked his estranged wife with an axe in a suburban shopping centre has told an appeal court he abhors family violence and was “a victim as much as a perpetrator”.

William Henry Richardson also said the manipulation of family violence laws would be looked back on as a “dark period’’ for the rights of men.

In March last year Richardson walked into the Shoreline Shopping Centre and, after seeing his estranged wife, bought an axe and struck her head and body five times.

This year a Supreme Court jury found him not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser charge of causing grievous bodily harm.

Justice Stephen Estcourt sentenced the former stockbroker to seven years’ jail with a non-parole period of 4½ years. Richardson is appealing the sentence on the basis it is “manifestly excessive”.

He appeared yesterday before Chief Justice Alan Blow, Justice Michael Brett and Acting Justice Pierre Slicer who at one point described the axe attack as like a “gothic horror event”. The self-represented inmate argued several witnesses at the trial could never recall him being aggressive or abusive to his wife. He said his wife’s brother was one of his best friends even after he “tragically did what I did”.

Richardson pointed to his good character and lack of prior criminal record and accused his wife of lying when she cited his systematic abuse.

“I’m not a criminal, I have in my life gone out of my way to help people. If I saw [family violence] happen in front of me I wouldn’t stand for it,” he said.

Richardson said he was “ashamed” of his actions and deserved punishment but his crime was a case of a “good man falling apart … and doing something completely out of character”.

Crown Prosecutor Linda Mason said the crime was an example of ”extreme family violence”.

“The gravity of this crime, its consequences for the complainant mean little mitigation could be afforded to the respondent,” she said.

At the time of the assault Richardson was subject to a police family violence order preventing him harassing his wife. Ms Mason said when a family violence order was breached the court must respond with “strong condemnation”. She called for the appeal to be dismissed because there was no error in the sentence and it was not “unjust or unreasonable”.

The appeal was adjourned for a decision at a later date.