But he refused to get out and punched another passenger who was trying to help him. Someone else joined in, then Scammell.
While the victim was distracted trying to ward off the first two opponents, Scammell hit him hard in the face and he fell to the ground. Scammell then kicked him at least once to the body and head, the head kick knocking him unconscious.
The victim had to undergo emergency surgery to remove two litres of urine from his abdominal cavity, resulting from a 5cm rupture to his bladder. He also suffered a broken nose and fractured eye sockets. A metal plate had to be inserted for one of the eye injuries.
In a written statement for the court, the man said the impact on him had been “profound” and “life changing”. He still struggled with the pain of having the plate holding his eye socket together, especially in cold weather. He had endured numerous surgeries, recoveries and physiotherapy. Treatment was ongoing. He couldn’t do his previous hands-on work and had to take on a more passive role. He had missed out on numerous events.
He wasn’t interested in the money Scammell was offering, but simply wanted to know why he had done what he’d done. The man was also concerned about the effort it seemed to have taken Scammell to front up to the offending and the developments that had taken place in the case ahead of that.
Judge Cathcart said Scammell was lucky the man had regained consciousness. The potential was there for him to have been facing an even more dire charge. Scammell nodded in agreement.
The judge questioned why comments noted by a pre-sentence report writer conflicted with Scammell’s more “eloquent” expressions of remorse and suggested he denied the attack on the ground.
Counsel Alistair Clarke said Scammell was “floored” by what was attributed to him in the pre-sentence report and didn’t have any conflict with the police summary of facts. His memory of that night was only patchy due to his alcohol consumption and he had initially struggled with the notion he would’ve kicked someone on the ground but ultimately accepted that if it was seen, it must have happened.
Regarding a suggested lack of remorse, Mr Clarke said Scammell instructed that the report writer had only raised with him the impact on himself and hadn’t asked him to comment on the impact on the victim.
His remorse for the man was “genuine and honest” and would have been the same had he been asked about it at the interview.
Judge Cathcart said it would have been better had Scammell volunteered it. However, he was prepared to accept the offending was out of character and defied Scammell’s usual compassionate and kind nature, as described in numerous character references.
The judge said he wondered if Scammell was still in denial when interviewed for the report and had just needed time to gain insight. He noted Scammell’s comment in a letter that it made him “sick to the stomach” to think of what he had done.
Setting a starting point of two years, eight months imprisonment, the judge reached a notional end sentence of 17 months imprisonment after giving a full 25 percent discount for Scammell’s guilty plea, four months discount for his personal circumstances, and three months discount for his good prospects of rehabilitation, remorse, and his offer to make an emotional harm payment of $3000, albeit the judge ordered a higher sum.
Given Scammell’s lack of previous relevant convictions, it was appropriate to convert the end prison term to home detention, the judge said.
He noted Scammell, and another offender he sentenced that day, had each made the mistake while intoxicated of getting involved in something that was none of their business — “grabbing the ears of a passing dog”.
The saying comes from Proverbs 26:17-19 — “whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears”.
