STATE OF TASMANIA v CHRISTIAN LAURENCE BEAVEN 7 MAY 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Christian Laurence Beaven, a jury has found you guilty of the crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm contrary to s 170(1) of the Criminal Code. Consistent with the jury’s verdict, it is for me to make findings of fact for sentencing purposes, although given the only issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator, the facts largely follow from the verdict. The jury’s verdict establishes that you were the perpetrator of the crime and that you had the requisite intent. To the extent it is necessary to determine any matters of fact, I can only find a fact adverse to you if I am satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt.
The crime was committed against a Mr Dwayne Richardson. I am satisfied he was known to you. I accept his evidence that when you were younger you would attend his home and rally cars in his paddock. It is not clear on the evidence why you had a grievance against Mr Richardson. Mr Richardson was unable to explain it. He said that over the years he had had multiple interactions with you, without difficulty.
For whatever reason, I am satisfied that on 28 September 2023 you had a grievance with Mr Richardson and went looking for him. He was at the home of a Mr Paul Martin. A Melissa Stocks was also at the home at the time. You knew both Mr Martin and Ms Stocks and had previously been to Mr Martin’s home. You entered Mr Martin’s home through the back door. Immediately your demeanour towards Mr Richardson was aggressive. You said to him “I’m going to wreck you Jelly”. “Jelly” was Mr Richardson’s nickname. You started shouting at him to come outside and fight you. You then took Mr Martin’s dog out into the back yard. I am satisfied that you did this because you knew the dog could become aggressive if there was fighting inside the home.
The aggressive manner in which you entered the home, coupled with your act of taking the dog out into the back yard, is strong evidence that you intended to cause significant harm to Mr Richardson. When you returned into the house you were armed with a metal pole. It is not clear whether you had this pole hidden away when you arrived at the house or collected it when you went into the back yard. In any event, when you re-entered the home, you immediately walked behind Mr Richardson, who was sitting on a kitchen chair, and struck him to the back of the head with the pole. This strike was forceful, and Mr Richardson describes seeing black and white flashes. At this point, I am satisfied that Mr Martin called out to you to stop. You did not, but walked around to the front of Mr Richardson and struck him hard in the left eye with the pole. You then left the house smashing the front fence and letterbox with the pole as you departed.
Mr Richardson was immediately in a lot of pain and disorientated. He was able to contact his mother who collected him and took him to the hospital. The injuries caused to Mr Richardson were significant. There was a large scalp hematoma on the back of the left side of his head. There was orbital swelling and a contusion to the left side of his head. The left eye was oozing blood and there was fluid inside the eyeball. Mr Richardson had no vision in his left eye. A CT scan showed an acute rupture of the left eyeball. There was also a facture of the left orbital floor of the eye socket with extension into the lateral orbital wall. The rectus muscle of the eye had descended through the facture defect. There was also a large left parietal hematoma. There was a fracture on the back of the seventh rib. The laceration to the left eye was sutured immediately, as given the extent of the damage, there was no prospect of saving any vision in Mr Richardson’s left eye.
Mr Richardson had to undergo several surgeries in respect to his eye. Ultimately, the left eyeball had to be completely removed. There were several complications with the surgeries. The blow to the eye had lacerated the entire cornea and more than 180 degrees of the circumference of the eye globe. Consequently, the eyeball shrunk and became unsightly, which necessitated its removal, but because of the eye shrinkage, the usual orbital implant was not able to be utilised, and an alternate implant had to be arranged. Following the evisceration of his eye, Mr Richardson developed a cyst on the wound which delayed the fitting of the prosthesis. Eventually, an artificial eye was fitted in October 2025. The long wait for the prosthesis was emotionally difficult and physically painful. It is anticipated that a new artificial eye fitting will be required approximately every four years to accommodate changes to the eye socket which occur naturally over time. This will necessitate further surgery and of course considerable cost. The cost for fitting a new artificial eye is currently in excess of $3,000. The eye prothesis also must be polished regularly, a task that cannot be undertaken in Tasmania.
I have received a victim impact statement from Mr Richardson. He has been very traumatised by your conduct and the injury you caused to his eye has changed his life irretrievably. Before your crime, Mr Richardson lived with an acquired brain injury arising from a motor vehicle accident in 1996, in which he was a pedestrian and was struck by a car. Following that he suffered anxiety, depression and insomnia. Your violence magnified these symptoms. The eye injury has caused him pain, embarrassment and trauma. His self-esteem has been damaged, and he has become socially withdrawn. He now cannot participate in activities that used to provide him with enjoyment such as riding his motorbike. He has had to endure three eye surgeries and more will be forthcoming. He regularly experiences headaches and migraines which were non-existent before the eye injury. He continues to experience pain where his eye has been removed. Because he has no vision on his left-hand side, he often finds himself falling over or running into things. He experiences nightmares and has regular flashbacks, feeling the sensation of the pole ramming into his eye. He has been financially impacted and is stressed and anxious as to how he will pay for the future care of his prosthetic eye. Without doubt, your crime has caused not only permanent physical impairment, but also considerable psychological harm. To put it simply, his life will never be the same again because of your violence.
You are 35 years of age. You have a long and concerning criminal history reflective of a long-term drug addiction. By the age of 17, you were quite regularly before the youth courts for matters of dishonesty and driving offences. As an adult you have many prior convictions for matters of dishonesty, driving offences, bail offences, firearm offences and drug offences. Your history for violent crime is far less. On 23 September 2010, you were sentenced by this Court for the crime of assault. You were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, the execution of which was wholly suspended. Beyond that, there are some matters involving violence towards property, but it does not appear that violence generally has been a feature of your criminal offending. You have been sentenced to gaol on several occasions for driving offences and dishonesty offences. You have had the benefit of drug treatment orders on two previous occasions. In 2020, you were placed on a drug treatment order with a custodial component of eight months. You were unable to successfully complete it and were subsequently re-sentenced. Similarly on 27 September 2023, you were again placed on a drug treatment order with a custodial component of six months. You were obviously released into the community upon that order being made, but rather than taking up the opportunity that was intended to be offered by such a rehabilitative sentencing order, the very next day you committed this serious crime. You were arrested and in October 2025, the drug treatment order was cancelled and you were re-sentenced.
You have experienced a difficult childhood. You did not have a relationship with either of your biological parents and you were raised by your grandparents. You have had difficulties with illicit substances from early teenage years. I am told that despite this you have at times, demonstrated a solid work ethic. After leaving school you undertook an apprenticeship as a bricklayer, and you have held down various positions of labour-based employment. Unfortunately, your use of illicit substances escalated to the point that you were unable to maintain employment and for many years now, your life has been characterised by drug addiction and criminal offending.
This is a very serious example of this crime. I am satisfied, consistent with the jury’s verdict, that your intention was to cause serious injury in the nature of disfigurement or grievous bodily harm to Mr Richardson. Ramming a pole into the eye of a person with sufficient force to completely lacerate the cornea, must have involved an intention to cause serious, and disfiguring injury. I find this intention and your consequential actions were premeditated and callous. This is the only possible conclusion available from your actions of entering into the unit, immediately telling Mr Richardson you were going to “wreck” him, removing the dog from the unit, arming yourself with a metal pole, striking him from behind to the back of the head rendering him vulnerable and then, despite being told to stop, striking him directly to the face and eye. As I have noted, the consequences for Mr Richardson have been extreme.
Moreover, you did this in the home of another person and in the presence of others. After the attack you simply walked away, showing a callous disregard for Mr Richardson’s well-being. Premediated serious violence of this nature is abhorrent. It is of concern to the community, and it must be punished and condemned. Denunciation, general deterrence and vindication of the complainant are important sentencing considerations, and given your lengthy criminal history, so too is specific deterrence an important consideration.
There are very few mitigating circumstances of any significance. There is no suggestion of any remorse or insight. I take into account that this sentence will come on top of sentences of imprisonment that you have served since the commission of this crime. In my view, however, the only appropriate penalty is a significant sentence of imprisonment. The objective seriousness of this crime demands the same. I will make provision for release on parole but having regard to the seriousness of your conduct and your prior criminal history, I am satisfied that you should spend a period in actual custody which is greater than the statutory minimum.
Christian Laurence Beaven, you are convicted of the crime of which you have been found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years commencing 8 January 2026. You are not eligible for parole until you have served four years of that sentence.