On the morning of 27 August 2024, an incident occurred at Leederville Station in Perth involving a 30-year-old man who allegedly threatened multiple people with a knife. The man is reported to have first assaulted a woman on the station's overpass at around 7:30 am before threatening her with a knife. He then allegedly directed the same threat towards another individual before leaving the scene. Fortunately, no injuries were reported.
Police, including Perth and Wembley units, detectives, the Police Air Wing, and a canine unit, responded to the incident, but the man was not immediately apprehended. Later that day, at approximately 5:30 pm, the man presented himself at Mirrabooka Police Station, where he was arrested. After further investigation, he was charged with several offenses, including common assault and being armed in a way that may cause fear or endanger the life, health, or safety of a person.
The charge of being armed in a way that may cause fear is governed by Section 68 of the Criminal Code of Western Australia. This provision states that a person who is or pretends to be armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument in circumstances likely to cause fear to any person is guilty of a crime.
To understand this offense, it is important to consider its key elements. The term "a person" refers to any individual involved in the conduct described by the law, encompassing anyone regardless of age, gender, or other characteristics. Being "armed" means having a weapon in one’s possession, which can include traditional weapons like guns or knives as well as other objects that could be perceived as weapons. This definition also covers situations where a person possesses an object that, while not designed as a weapon, is used or appears to be used as one. For example, holding a broken bottle in a threatening manner could meet the criteria for being armed.
The law broadly defines a "dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument" to include not only conventional weapons like firearms or knives but also unconventional items that could be used offensively, such as a piece of glass or a heavy object. Additionally, it covers replica weapons, which may not be functional but can still induce fear due to their realistic appearance.
Finally, the element of "circumstances likely to cause fear" focuses on the context in which the person is armed. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that someone was actually frightened; rather, the law considers whether the situation was such that a reasonable person would likely experience fear. This could involve brandishing a weapon in a public place, making threats while armed, or otherwise acting in a way that suggests imminent harm. In applying Section 68, courts examine the totality of the circumstances, including the type of weapon, the manner in which it was displayed, and the environment in which the conduct occurred. The seriousness of this offense lies in its potential not only to cause physical harm but also to instill fear in the community, thus impacting public safety.
The case of Keith Edward Thurston-Moon provides a striking example of how the charge of being armed in a way that may cause fear is applied in practice, particularly when unconventional items are used as weapons. On 31 August of the previous year, Thurston-Moon, a 42-year-old lawnmower worker, became involved in a heated altercation with another man outside a deli in the Perth suburb of Cloverdale.
The incident began with a verbal dispute between Thurston-Moon and the victim. The situation quickly turned physical when Thurston-Moon grabbed the whipper snipper, pulling its ripcord repeatedly in a clear attempt to intimidate the other man. Fearing for his safety, the victim sought refuge inside a nearby liquor store. However, when he emerged a short time later, Thurston-Moon struck him with the line trimmer, causing cuts to his buttocks. The entire episode was captured on CCTV, and there were multiple witnesses to the event. Thurston-Moon’s actions did not end there; after the attack, he returned to his colleagues, smiled, and gave them a thumbs up, indicating a sense of satisfaction with what he had done.
Thurston-Moon pleaded guilty to the charges of being armed in a way that may cause fear with intent to harm and doing an act causing bodily harm. During sentencing in the West Australian District Court, he received an 18-month prison term. Thurston-Moon, however, believed the sentence was excessive and appealed the decision, arguing that the judge had erred in their judgment.
The Western Australian Court of Appeal reviewed the case, but ultimately rejected Thurston-Moon’s appeal. The court ruled that the sentence was neither “unreasonable nor plainly unjust,” emphasizing the seriousness of his actions. The judges noted that Thurston-Moon had intentionally used the whipper snipper as a weapon, an action that was both unpredictable and dangerous. They pointed out that the tool could have caused severe injuries to the victim, particularly to sensitive areas such as his genitals, hands, or face.
The court’s judgment also highlighted that Thurston-Moon was the clear aggressor in the situation. He had consciously walked to his vehicle, retrieved the whipper snipper, and pursued his unarmed victim over a period of several minutes. His intent to harm was evident not only in his actions but also in his demeanor afterward, as indicated by his thumbs-up gesture to his colleagues. The judges described Thurston-Moon’s conduct as “completely senseless,” noting that his actions appeared to be driven by anger and a misguided sense of vigilantism.
This case serves as a clear illustration of how the law applies to situations where an individual uses an unconventional item as a weapon in a manner likely to cause fear or harm. The use of a whipper snipper in this context shows that the law does not solely focus on traditional weapons but also encompasses other objects that can be used to intimidate or injure. The decision in Thurston-Moon’s case reinforces the judiciary's commitment to addressing violent conduct that disrupts public safety, regardless of the specific type of weapon involved.
In conclusion, being armed in a way that causes fear is a serious criminal offense with significant legal consequences. The law takes such actions seriously because they threaten public safety and can lead to both physical and psychological harm. If you or someone you know is charged with this offense, it is crucial to seek professional legal advice as soon as possible. The complexities of the law require expert guidance to navigate the legal process effectively. For experienced and reliable legal support, contact Carter Dickens Lawyers. Our team is here to help you understand your rights and provide the representation you need.
Comments