‘Run, fat boy’: Lawnmower worker who attacked man with a whipper snipper loses appeal against sentence

A lawnmower worker who chased after a man and used a whipper snipper to cut him on the buttocks, yelled ‘run, fat boy’.

The offender took his case to the Court of Appeal. Picture: Ross Swanborough

A lawnmower worker who attacked a man with a whipper snipper, yelling “run, fat boy”, has lost an appeal against his prison sentence.

Keith Edward Thurston-Moon, 42, and the victim argued outside a deli in the Perth suburb of Cloverdale about 11.40am on August 31 last year.

Thurston-Moon grabbed a whipper snipper from his vehicle, then repeatedly pulled the ripcord, prompting the victim to seek refuge inside a liquor store.

When the victim left a short time later, Thurston-Moon struck him with the line trimmer, causing cuts to his buttocks.

He then returned to his colleagues, smiled and gestured with a thumbs up.

The incident was captured on CCTV and there were several witnesses.

Thurston-Moon pleaded guilty to being armed in a way that may cause fear with intent to harm, and doing an act causing bodily harm.

The father of two was sentenced in the West Australian District Court to 18 months in prison.

But he took his case to the West Australian Court of Appeal, arguing the sentence was manifestly excessive and the judge had erred.

The victim was attacked with a whipper snipper. Picture: Supplied

This week, the court rejected his bid, ruling the sentence was not “unreasonable or plainly unjust”, noting Thurston-Moon had used the tool as a weapon.

The judges found that in “such unpredictable and sudden circumstances” the whipper snipper could have cut the victim in areas such as his genitals, hands or even his face.

“At all times, the appellant was the aggressor,” the judgment read.

“He chose to walk to his work vehicle, pick up the whipper snipper from the trailer and, over a period of minutes, pursue his unarmed and vulnerable victim.

“It is clear from the appellant’s words and actions that he was intent upon inflicting harm and, by giving his colleagues the thumbs up, was pleased with himself for what he had done.”

The judges further described Thurston-Moon’s conduct as “completely senseless”.

“Plainly, he was angry and his Honour found that the appellant acted out of some sense of vigilantism,“ they said.

“Apart from describing what occurred as ‘a moment of madness’, the offending has not been explained.

“The offending was not momentary, but was sustained over a period of time.”