Man’s car park hammer attack appeal dismissed

A violent offender who attacked another man with a hammer before stealing his car has had an appeal against his sentence dismissed.

Luke Paul Samuel Richards was jailed for six years and six months in August for the aggravated robbery and breaching post-detention conditions.

He lodged an appeal arguing his jail term was manifestly unjust, but in a decision released on Wednesday the Court of Appeal dismissed his application.

The decision outlined the offending and said Richards lured his victim to a church car park by pretending to be his own girlfriend.

She drove him and another male to the scene, and the two men hopped out before she parked her vehicle in front of the victim’s, blocking him in.

Richards smashed the driver’s window with a hammer before striking the man in the face and head.

The victim fled and Richards took his car to settle a debt his friend owed.

The victim suffered serious injuries and his right eye lost its central vision.

A titanium plate was inserted near his eye, and he lost his career.

During Richards’ sentencing, the judge noted overlapping aggravating factors of extreme violence, premeditation, serious injury, using a weapon and theft, but accepted taking the car was a consequence of the attack and not its motivation.

Richards’ attack was serious, but its lack of objective lowered the starting point to eight years and six months.

Uplifts were applied for Richards’ criminal history, and a 40 per cent discount was allowed for his guilty pleas and personal factors.

Richards submitted, via his lawyer Chris Bernhardt, the starting point was too high and the case law was not comparable.

He said his offending was akin to low-level street robbery.

Bernhardt said even if the judge adopted the highest starting point allowed it should have been seven years and six months jail.

He noted Richards’ breach was prior to the robbery so any uplift for this was unwarranted, and the judge’s approach to uplifts risked double-punishment.

He said Richards deserved a 20% discount for his background and mental health.

The Crown said the attack was “far from” any low-level robbery and the judge was generous given Richards’ “greater criminality in causing permanent disability to a more vulnerable victim premeditatively lured to a car park”.

His “vigilante intention” allowed for a higher starting point, and he had more more than 40 convictions.

The court agreed the offending “went well beyond” the “demanding menaces” nature of a street robbery without violence.

Actual violence led to a higher starting point and consideration had to be given to the planning and premeditation reflected in Richards luring the victim to the car park at dusk.

His associates acted as reinforcements and prevented the victim from leaving.

He also “used a weapon repeatedly to inflict significant physical damage to the victim’s head with ongoing psychological and permanent physical sequalae.

“In then taking the victim’s car, it is very serious aggravated robbery conduct.

“In our assessment, a starting point of more than eight years and six months was open to the judge.”

Richards was charged under section 235(a) of the Crimes Act, which said everyone was liable to a term of no more than 14 years if they robbed any person and caused grievous bodily harm.

And, although an amended summary of facts was signed with the charge listed under section 235(c) instead, which referred only to robbing with a weapon, it was “incontestable” he caused grievous bodily harm.

The court disagreed the uplift for criminal history was to “doubly” punish Richards as it recognised his “continuation of prior violent offending“.

“Thus, ultimately, the judge’s end sentence is an arguably generous application of the principles ... we find no fault with it.

“There is no question of any excess.”

The victim suffered serious injuries and his right eye lost its central vision. A titanium plate was inserted near his eye, and he lost his career.