The actions of a young man who injured a nightclub security officer with a screwdriver were consistent with ‘‘a good deal of similar offending'' in the centre of the city at night, Judge Michael Crosbie said yesterday.
Almost every offence of serious violence in Dunedin's CBD occurred ‘‘in the very small hours of the morning''.
Almost all of that violence was accompanied by drunkenness and happened when people were close to, or had just left, licensed premises, the judge told 21-year-old labourer Christopher Robert Sheppard, in the Dunedin District Court.
Sheppard was for sentence for wounding security officer/ student David Tuisaula with intent to injure him on May 25 last year and unlawfully carrying an offensive weapon, a screwdriver, the same night.
He had denied the allegations but pleaded guilty partway through his jury trial in May and was yesterday sentenced to 27 months' jail for the wounding, with a concurrent nine months on the weapon charge.
The incident happened just before midnight, after staff at The Monkey nightclub spoke to Sheppard about his level of intoxication. He was escorted to the front door where an argument developed and Mr Tuisaula was called over to assist.
Sheppard was asked several times to leave but protested and suddenly grabbed Mr Tuisaula by the back of the neck and thrust a screwdriver against his throat. Initially, Mr Tuisaula felt no pain although he sustained a small puncture wound to the throat.
Sheppard crossed the street and was asked by a group of males if he was all right. He abused them, held up the screwdriver and, after a brief struggle, was restrained.
Mr Tuisaula was a student doing security work to help pay his fees, Judge Crosbie said.
Because of the bruising, he had difficulty eating solids for a week and had been left with some psychological issues. The matter had plagued his mind for several months. He developed a deep fear of another attack and had been unable to return to work.
Crown counsel Richard Smith said there was some premeditation, in that Sheppard was carrying a weapon when he entered a nightclub. While there was no inherent vulnerability because of the stature of the two parties, the victim could be said to be a vulnerable target because of his occupation.
The weapon was an aggravating feature but credit could be given to Sheppard for his youth and lack of previous convictions, and for his guilty plea, although it came late.
For Sheppard, Campbell Savage stressed the competing interests involved in the sentencing exercise. An attack to the throat with a weapon would ordinarily attract a lengthy sentence of imprisonment but there had been negligible harm to the victim, who sustained a minor wound, causing him little discomfort or harm.
Sheppard was a young man with a great deal of potential. He was employed, had kept to his bail conditions and was in a stable domestic situation. But he had been convicted of a serious charge and, while prison could be the sentence, it did not have to be.
It was acknowledged there had been an unprovoked attack with a weapon, Mr Savage said. The defendant was at a loss to explain why it happened but accepted he had to be answerable.
Judge Crosbie accepted Sheppard was a first offender but said the court had to send a message to the community that those offending against people going about their lawful business would be dealt with severely. Denunciation was needed in cases where an offender was armed.
When there was an altercation and people were drunk, it was ‘‘all too easy'' to bring out a weapon when, ‘‘if you were sober, with a clear head, you wouldn't''.
Taking into account Sheppard was at low risk of reoffending, had expressed his regret and offered reparation, had no hazardous pattern of alcohol use and was not said to be a violent character, and giving him credit for his youth and his guilty plea, Judge Crosbie sentenced him to two years and three months' jail on the intentional injury charge, with a concurrent nine months for carrying a weapon in public.
He was also ordered to pay $500 emotional harm reparation.
