Leigh John Parker loses his appeal against his sentence for a drunken attack on his terminally ill partner

A man who was jailed for more than four years for attacking his terminally ill partner, causing her hysterectomy wound to split open, has had his appeal dismissed.

A MURDUNNA man who drunkenly attacked his terminally ill partner has learnt the fate of his appeal.

Leigh John Parker, 55, was sentenced last year to four years and three months in prison with a non-parole period of two years and nine months for assaulting his partner of five years on September 27, 2018.

Parker appealed against the sentence, on the ground that it was manifestly excessive, but the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his case on Friday.

TWIST IN MAN’S FIGHT TO HAVE HIS SENTENCE REDUCED

The court had previously heard Parker’s partner had been diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer about four months before the assaults. As a result of the cancer, she had a hysterectomy and underwent chemotherapy.

The court heard on the night of September 27, the couple argued and Parker hit her over the head with a teapot before pushing her over twice, both times causing her to fall. The second fall caused her hysterectomy wound to split open.

The court heard Parker called for an ambulance, put a blanket over the woman, and then went to his next-door neighbour’s house where he asked for a cigarette and said he thought the woman was dead.

She was taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital where she underwent emergency abdominal surgery and had a laceration to her head repaired with nine staples.

Parker’s lawyer for the appeal, Kim Baumeler, said the consequences of the assault were “not foreseen nor intended” by Parker and the sentence “gave too much weight to the extent of the injuries and insufficient weight to those matters that could have lessened the sentence”.

Counsel for the state, Allison Shand, said Parker had numerous prior convictions, including for crimes of violence, which was “demonstrative of the appellant’s continuing disobedience of the law”.

In dismissing the appeal, Justice Stephen Estcourt said the sentence was a “heavy” one, but not unjust or unreasonable.

“As I have said in the past, vulnerable women such as the complainant are entitled to the protection of the law against brutal partners,” he said.

Justices Robert Pearce and Gregory Geason also dismissed the appeal.

“This Court has on a number of occasions emphasised the importance of general deterrence in sentencing for offences involving the infliction of violence on the vulnerable,” Justice Geason said.

“Too frequently this occurs in a domestic or relationship context. Such conduct requires a sentence that reflects the insidious nature of such offending, and the importance of protecting those vulnerable to such harm.”