Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Judge criticises man for ‘carrying on like pork chop’ in deadly assault

A Supreme Court judge has broken away from tradition in delivering a judgement to a man – or “nasty hyena” – who was charged with manslaughter following a two-punch assault that killed a “noble wildebeest” in the early hours of a November night.

user iconNaomi Neilson 03 March 2021 Big Law
Victoria Supreme Court
expand image

“Just before midnight on 24 March 1944, British tail-gunner Flight Sergeant Nicholas Alkemade jumped from a spiralling Lancaster, on its return from a mission in Berlin, at an altitude of 5,000 metres. He had no parachute,” read the first line of a Victorian Supreme Court judgement, written by the Honourable Justice Michael Croucher, that set out a punishment for a man accused of killing another in a deadly assault. 

Over the next few paragraphs, Justice Croucher sets the story of a lucky Sergeant Alkemade who opted out of death by incineration aboard his aircraft in favour of backflipping out of the turret to contemplate his last moments while hurtling towards the earth. Unbelievably, he opened his eyes three hours later, mostly unharmed. 

Justice Croucher wrote that a “bed of snow on the floor of a Ruhr pine forest” had broken Sergeant Alkemade’s fall so he could go on to evade a few more brushes with death and die of natural causes some 48 years later. Unfortunately, “75 years on and on the other side of the world, David Blake was not so lucky”. 

Advertisement
Advertisement

“Standing 196 centimetres tall and weighing 171 kilograms (or six-foot-five and 27 stone in the old), it seemed nigh on impossible that such a man mountain could be harmed, let alone felled and killed, as a result of a couple of punches from a quick-tempered drunken lout suffering delusion of grandeur and of about two-thirds his weight and a good 10 centimetres shorter,” Justice Croucher wrote. 

Over the rest of the judgement, Justice Croucher tells the story of Mr Blake with respect to his family and friends while condemning the actions of the attacker in a way not usually seen by Supreme Court judges – or any, for that matter. 

He explained in detail the night in question, in which both Mr Blake and four friends – including Mr Lucas – were chatting away after last drinks were called outside a bar that the former was a regular at. Mr Blake, along with his companions, was “so drunk as to be swaying” as he was recounting a story of a man that had been killed on the same streets years earlier and whose “lines” were still visible on the road. 

Taking offence to some part of his story, Mr Lucas punched Mr Blake twice and rendered him unconscious. Unfortunately, Mr Blake was unable to be revived. 

Justice Croucher’s accounts of the event are read almost incredulously as he wrote that the CCTV footage of the event was “sickening”. He said it was akin to watching a “nasty hyena take down a wildebeest”, who he added was of such a kind nature and friendly disposition that he was commonly referred to as “Tender” by friends. 

“Mr Lucas kept bouncing around in an orthodox pose with his fist up as if he was Muhammad Ali ready to continue the fight,” Justice Croucher said of the footage shortly after Mr Blake had been knocked unconscious. “In truth, he was carrying on like a pork chop, and was more Fester Fumble than the world’s greatest boxer.”

Mr Lucas has been sentenced to a term of nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. While CCTV footage of the attack may have been used as a deterrent and a warning, Justice Croucher has not permitted its release out of respect to family and friends and media have respected the decision. 

In explaining his decision, Justice Croucher said: “There is nothing this court can say or do that will heal the grief and pain suffered by Mr Blake’s family and friends. The sentence I must impose is not a reflection of the worth of Mr Blake’s life – as if anything so precious could ever be valued in any event. Rather, the sentence I am about to impose reflects many factors which I am required by law to consider and balance, only one of which is the impact on victims.”

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!