Judge rejects defence claim of ‘minor’ stabbing
A judge has set aside a defence lawyer’s suggestion that victim impact statements need to be “taken with a grain of salt” and a robbery victim should have “got over” receiving two small stab wounds.
Instead, Christchurch District Court Judge Alistair Garland said the central Christchurch street robbery attempt had a significant impact on the victim and his family, and jailed Jason Errol East for five years four months.
East, who has a partner and an 18-month-old child, has a bad history of violence with 10 convictions including assaults, threats, and weapon charges. He also has 10 convictions for dishonesty.
East was arrested after a DNA match with the knife used in the aggravated assault about 7am on June 12. His DNA was found on the handle of the knife, and the victim’s blood on the blade.
East approached a man using a money machine, and said something to him. When the man did not understand him, East said, “I’ll stab you,” and pushed him over.
The victim swore and kicked out to protect himself, and East then stabbed him twice in the calf with a small knife before fleeing.
One wound was 12mm wide and 20mm deep, and the other was 10mm wide and 4mm deep. Both were closed with sutures at the hospital. The victim also had a sore back from his fall.
East admitted the charge and had been remanded in custody for sentencing.
Defence counsel Gerald Lascelles described the wounds as “minor physical injuries” which any mature person “would have got over in due course”. It was unfair to blame East for any long term damage to the man’s personality or character.
Victim impact statements needed to be taken with a grain of salt because they were not subject to cross-examination, said Mr Lascelles.
Judge Garland said the victim was a married man, in his 40s, with children. The incident had been a big event in his children’s lives and they were now more nervous, upset, and worried. His wife had been terribly shocked. The man had tried to carry on with life as usual, but had found that was difficult.
The judge told East: “Clearly your offending has had a very significant emotional effect on this man and his family.”
He said the offence had been premeditated, to commit a robbery. East had taken the knife to the robbery – the judge did not accept his claim that he had picked it up.
He could give little weight to the letter of apology that East had handed to the court at the sentencing, but he reduced the sentence for the guilty plea. He noted the violence involved in East’s offending appeared to be increasing.
The knife may have been small, but it still had the potential to cause lethal injury, said the judge.
Category: News
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Connect
Connect with us via: