STATE OF TASMANIA v LISA ANNE PERRYMAN 5 JULY 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant Lisa Anne Perryman, who was born on 4 February 1968, has been found guilty by a jury of two counts of committing an act intended to cause bodily harm contrary to s 170 (1) of the Criminal Code and one count of assault contrary to s 184 of the Code. The victim was Horace Reginald Peter Monshing who lived next door to the defendant, and her late husband, at Middleton.
After a somewhat protracted dispute over a rather savage dog owned by the defendant and/or her husband, and after drinking to excess, the defendant and her husband drove to Mr and Mrs Monshing’s house on 17 November 2020, taking with them a chainsaw.
Mr Perryman attacked Mr Monshing with the chainsaw, outside his back door and in the presence of his wife, Mrs Monshing. The defendant actively encouraged her husband in two separate attacks with the chainsaw and in a separate assault consisting of punching Mr Monshing to the face multiple times. All the while the dog was attacking Mr Monshing.
Mr Perryman took his own life before the charges against him came to trial and Mrs Perryman stood trial alone as an alleged abettor and party to a joint criminal enterprise.
Mr Monshing suffered quite serious injuries as a result of the attack. He received significant injuries to his right hand, left forearm, dog bites, which I accept were not inflicted by the defendant or her husband, to both feet, legs, and a large gash to his right heel. He was transferred to the Royal Hobart Hospital, where he required stitches to his heel and arm, surgery to his right hand to repair a damaged tendon, and surgery to his left forearm. He subsequently had to undertake physiotherapy to enable his left hand to function again. He was unable to walk properly or wear ordinary footwear for almost six months due to the injuries to his feet.
The damage to his right hand is significant and ongoing, with loss of feeling and movement as well at times. He has an altered sensation of touch. He also has scarring to his hand and feet and has trouble with daily living activities such as showering, dressing, driving a car, and has been unable to attend his local walking group. He has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Mr Monshing and his wife were no longer able to live in their home after the attack and moved, losing their friends and their community. His sense of safety and wellbeing has been altered. He feels that he cannot leave his wife alone, as he fears for her safety. As noted, Mrs Monshing witnessed the attack and she and Mr Monshing each feared that they would lose their life on that night. This incident has been the most traumatic event in Mr Monshing’s life, and he is reminded of it daily when he sees the scarring on his right hand. He continues to have sleep disturbance and trust issues.
I find that the defendant went with her husband to Mr Monshing’s house knowing that he would be attacked and that she actively and continually encouraged her husband in a vile manner. I find, as opened by the Crown to the jury, that while Mr Monshing was yelling at Mr Perryman, (who had walked up the driveway wielding the operating chainsaw), to leave his property, the defendant manoeuvred the vehicle and drove in Mr Monshing’s direction. She got out of the car and she began to verbally abuse Mr Monshing. Mr Perryman approached Mr Monshing directly with the chainsaw and as he did this, Mr Monshing reached inside the door to the laundry for a croquet mallet that he had inside his back door. As he reached for it, Mr Perryman slashed at a post near the back door with the chainsaw and he swung the chainsaw at Mr Monshing’s head saying, “I’m going to cut your head off.”
I find that the defendant told Mr Monshing that she wanted him dead.
The chainsaw subsequently connected to the underside of Mr Monshing’s left forearm, causing a wound which exposed his muscle. Mr Monshing then began hitting Mr Perryman with the mallet to protect himself and he knocked Mr Perryman to the ground and the chainsaw out of his hands. I find that whilst her husband was on the ground, the defendant pushed Mr Monshing and yelled, “I want the dog to rip his throat out.”
I find that as Mr Perryman was getting up off the ground, the defendant continued to yell, saying, “Kill him, Neville, kill him.” When Mr Perryman got up off the ground, he picked up the chainsaw again and Mr Monshing swung the mallet at the chainsaw, again knocking it to the ground. Again, I find that while this was happening, the defendant was yelling, “Kill them, kill them. I want them all dead.”
Mr Perryman then swung the chainsaw at Mr Monshing again. This time the chainsaw connected with the back of his right hand causing a wound between his middle finger and his ring finger, which exposed the bone. And again, Mr Monshing swung the croquet mallet at Mr Perryman causing him to fall to the ground. Mr Perryman got up again, this time leaving the chainsaw idling on the ground and he again went after Mr Monshing. They wrestled and they had a physical fight during which Mr Perryman punched Mr Monshing to the face a number of times. By way of context, this fight ended, but the defendant continued with her verbal abuse. She threatened Mr Monshing, saying, “I want you dead. I want your wife dead. I want your daughter dead and I want your granddaughter dead, and I know where to find her.”
Further, and again by way of context, after the fight ended, Mr Perryman was ready to leave, but the defendant continued with her abuse. She told Mr Monshing, “I’ll have to get my brothers to finish the job.” And she said, “We will do what it takes to get rid of you and your wife and I’ll get my brothers to help me.”
This was a spiteful, cruel and malicious attack on an innocent and unsuspecting neighbour. There are no mitigating circumstances. The defendant’s only explanation is that she abused alcohol and had consumed a bottle of wine on the night of these crimes.
I have had the defendant assessed for home detention and community service but these crimes are too serious for such sentencing options, even given that the chainsaw was wielded by Mr Perryman and not the defendant and that the defendant has no prior convictions. The defendant’s criminal responsibility and moral culpability are too high.
The defendant is convicted, and I impose a single sentence of three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of half of that sentence.