It is clear that he has sustained a very severe head injury, and the persisting cognitive deficits he manifests now are unlikely to improve very much from this point. It is highly unlikely that he will be capable of undertaking any paid employment in the future."
9 There was placed before his Honour a statement from Ms Playford dated 29 May 2002 and that afforded his Honour with a lay perception of the very disabled condition in which the victim has been left as a result of the commission of this offence by the applicant.
10 The applicant was born on 6 January 1979, so that he was 22 years of age at the time of this attack. He had a criminal record and, significantly for present purposes, he was convicted of an assault in September 1999 and placed on a recognizance for twelve months. He was later placed on a further recognizance for assault, this time for a period of two years and it was a condition of the recognizance that he stay away from licensed premises.
11 Hence, this offence was committed in breach of the later recognizance itself and in breach of a condition of the recognizance that required him to stay away from licensed premises.
12 The judge assessed the offence as being spontaneous and not premeditated. Assessing its objective gravity, his Honour said:
"This is not an offence the most serious of its kind because it lacks that element of planning but nevertheless it is not far removed from it."
13 It seems to me that it was open to his Honour to make the assessment that he did make. This was a very grave offence of its type and was accompanied by the callousness of the applicant leaving the victim in his injured state outside the hotel.
14 There were subjective features that could be described as powerful subjective features to be weighed in this case. The applicant had the most unfortunate of upbringings. He was one of four siblings poorly cared for by his parents. Indeed, the paternal grandmother and grandfather gave disturbing evidence as to how the applicant and his siblings were treated as small children. Plainly they were neglected in terms of their physical needs.
15 The parents eventually separated and following intervention by DOCS, the applicant was placed at Delmar. He was made a State ward in 1986 and he passed through the hands of a number of foster carers. His father remarried and the applicant's stepmother treated the applicant poorly when the applicant lived with his father and stepmother for a time.
16 The applicant was sexually abused by some drinking acquaintance of his father with whom he was unfortunate enough to come into contact whilst he was living with his father and stepmother.
17 From the age of fifteen or so the applicant lived with a girlfriend for a period of some five years and during that period he suffered yet a further episode of sexual abuse.
18 The background to the offence committed in the hotel was that the applicant perceived the victim to have been harassing the applicant's girlfriend and her mother.
19 The subjective material, which was placed before his Honour, is to be found in a report from Ms Kennedy and Ms Barrier dated 19 May 2002, the psychiatric report from Dr Robinson dated 10 October 2001 and a report from Mr Spencer, psychologist, prepared sometime earlier, on 21 August 1997. There was also a statement made by the applicant placed before his Honour dated 24 November 1994, which dealt with the subject of the most recent of the episodes of sexual abuse.
20 Further, there was a psychologist's report from Mr Davis dated 2 September 1992, which addressed the issue of the applicant's earlier sexual abuse.
21 Ms Burgess, in written submissions and in her oral submissions, submitted that the applicant has had a tragic background, epitomized by neglect and emotional, physical and sexual abuse. I accept that assessment as being entirely accurate.
22 The applicant's brother was accidentally killed when struck by a truck and it was that deceased brother's girlfriend who subsequently became the applicant's girlfriend. This young lady and her mother were the persons who the applicant perceived the victim to have been hassling.
23 In his report of 21 August 1997 Mr Spencer, in assessing the applicant's psychological status at that time wrote:
"Troy is a young man whose life up to date has been characterised by various levels of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. It is beyond question that the experiences he has been through have left him with a range of residual psychological difficulties, including mood disturbance, anxiety, feelings of estrangement/isolation, a reduced level of self esteem, problems with trust, relationship difficulties and difficulties with aggression and anger control. These problems have, and continue to effect Troy's general level of functioning and his capacity to deal effectively with other situations in his life. His major coping mechanism tends to be withdrawal and avoidance. This is particularly so in relation to the sexual abuse Troy suffered, and to the present time he remains very anxious about discussing this experience, and the feelings it has left him with."
24 The psychological assessment undertaken by Ms Kennedy and Ms Barrier concluded:
"Objective testing of Troy's personality found a borderline personality style coupled with negativistic and masochistic tendencies. Those with borderline personality difficulties have often experienced physical and sexual abuse, neglect, hostile conflict and parental separation in childhood. Indeed, Troy has experienced each of these, and it would be surprising if these events had not had an adverse effect on his psychological and personality development. The negativistic and masochistic elevations are reflected by Troy's interpersonal difficulties and sense that he does not deserve happiness in his life. Objective testing of Troy's intelligence found him to be at the high end of the below average range of functioning…"
25 The authors went on to say he, referring to the applicant:
"He acknowledged the seriousness of the offences currently before the Court and stated his concern that he not become involved in further, more serious violence. However, Troy does not appear to possess the skills to deal with conflict in a non-violent manner, and his attitudes towards the current offences are an indication of his lack of insight into his behaviour.