Appeals court asks judge to explain his sentencing ruling

A judge has been ordered to further explain his sentence in the case of a woman who was left blind in one eye after a glassing attack.

Tasmanian glassing victim Olivia Knapek after her injuries.

A JUDGE has been ordered to further explain his sentence in the case of a woman who was left blind in one eye after a glassing attack.

Liv Knapek, 20, was at a barbecue at Honeywood in September 2017 when Emilia Olive Harwood, 23, of Bellerive, struck her to the face with a glass.

Harwood was found guilty of grievous bodily harm by a jury after a trial last year and was sentenced in the Supreme Court in Hobart in December.

ATTACKER JAILED FOR ‘RECKLESS’ GLASSING

The court heard Ms Knapek had been left blind in one eye and disfigured for life as a result of the attack.

Justice Gregory Geason sentenced Harwood to 12 months’ jail, with the last nine months suspended for three years.

He also ordered she perform 80 hours of community service and be subject to a probation order upon her release.

In his sentencing remarks to Harwood, Justice Geason said the glassing was an “impulsive and unjustifiable” and “reckless” action, and there was “nothing to justify the extent of your response”.

He also said he accepted that Harwood was remorseful, that it was unlikely she would reoffend and that she had not intended for her victim to lose an eye.

Olivia Knapek before the attack.

Before the Court of Criminal Appeal in Hobart on Tuesday, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Linda Mason said the state was appealing against the matter on the basis that Justice Geason failed to make or state his findings of fact that informed the sentence he imposed.

Ms Mason said it had not been made clear the severity of the crime, the level of Harwood’s criminal responsibility or her level of remorse.

“If a sentence is to truly have its effect, the community needs to know the basis upon which the sentence was imposed,” she said.

“There is public interest in ensuring consistency. The respondent [Harwood] also needs to know the seriousness of her conduct.”

Harwood’s lawyer, Kate Cuthbertson, said it was not the role of the appeal court to “cast a critical eye” over comments on passing sentence by trial judges.

She said Justice Geason’s reasons for sentencing had been made clear and Harwood’s remorse had been tied to the sentence.

Justice Helen Wood delivered the decision of the appeal court that Justice Geason provide a report to further explain his findings of fact in order for the appeal judges to be able to decide if the sentence was adequate or not.

After receiving the report from Justice Geason, the state may proceed to argue the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was adjourned until next month.