A neighbour from hell attacked a homeowner with a bottle of blue WKD during an altercation outside his house, a court has heard.
Liam Hunter, 27, involved himself in an argument the homeowner and his fiancée were having before smashing the glass bottle over his head.
The assault came just months after Hunter was spared prison for carrying a knife in public.
He appeared at Liverpool Crown Court yesterday, where a judge told him: “They appeared to be having an argument which plainly had nothing to do with you, certainly nothing that could justify the action you then took.
“Your victim still bears, quite literally, the scars of that night.”
The court was told how Hunter and his victim, Christopher Tuffy, had visited Go Local on Parr Stocks Road in St Helens on December 8.
Mr Tuffy is said to have had a “quick conversation” with his ex-partner as he left the shop.
This conversation then triggered a row between him and his current partner as they walked home, with Hunter following them close behind.
Liam Hunter attacked Christopher Tuffy with a WKD bottle, lacerating the top of his head
|
MERSEYSIDE POLICE
Sarah Gruffydd, who led the prosecution, explained how Mr Tuffy’s fiancée then “stormed off” after arriving back at their home, which is when Hunter approached their driveway.
As he walked onto the driveway, he threatened Mr Tuffy, saying: “I’ll hit you with this bottle. I’ll stick it in you.”
Hunter was holding a bottle of blue WKD by the base as he made the threat. He then grabbed the neck of the bottle before Mr Tuffy tried to “usher him away”.
A fight broke out between the pair, with both of them ending up on the ground.
Hunter then pulled Mr Tuffy’s shirt over his face before punching him multiple times in the head.
Liam Hunter was charged at Liverpool Crown Court on Monday
|
GOOGLE MAPS
He then went on to hit Mr Tuffy on the top of the head with the glass bottle, causing it to smash and lacerating his head.
An 11-year-old child was said to be a witness to the assault.
Mr Tuffy was left with two small cuts as well as a “large, full-thickness wound with arterial bleeding”, which required stitches.
Ms Gruffydd read a statement on behalf of Mr Tuffym in which he said that his “clothes were soaked in blood” as well as being “distressed by the sight of blood spattering on the walls of the hospital due to the severity of the bleeding”.
Mr Tuffy was said to be left so confused following the assault that he discharged himself against advice and walked barefoot in a medical gown to a train station.
The prosecution added: “He felt that he had to stay away from his children so they did not see the extent of the injury to his head. His home no longer feels like a safe space for him. He is fearful of repercussions, having taken this matter to court.”
Hunter had four previous convictions for four offences, including possession of a bladed article in a public place.
In Hunter’s defence, Anna Duke said: “The defendant suffers with PTSD because of a very traumatic childhood. He also suffers with ADHD as well. Because of that PTSD and the ADHD, he acts on impulse more than others would do.
“He has been in custody now for nearly seven months. He has not simply buried his head in the sand. He has utilised his time effectively in relation to securing a job and also undertaking various courses.
“There was some argument which appeared to get out of hand. I am not suggesting that the defendant should have intervened in the way he did, but something else triggered what then became the offence. He can be responsible, as far as his children are concerned, who are very young.
“At some point, this young man has to have light at the end of the tunnel. I ask your honour to impose a further period of suspension or the minimum sentence commensurate with your honour’s sentencing powers.”
Hunter pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful wounding. He was jailed for 28 months and handed a five-year restraining order.
Richard Pratt KC said: “On that occasion, you saw fit to involve yourself in what was a dispute between your ultimate victim and his companion for the night. They appeared to be having an argument which plainly had nothing to do with you, certainly nothing that could justify the action you then took.
“Having initially punched your victim to the head, you then struck him on top of the head with such force that the bottle broke. That action caused unpleasant-looking injuries. Some time later, months later, it is clear that your victim, Mr Tuffy, still bears, quite literally, the scars of that night.
“The offence on the indictment was committed within three months of you having received that suspended sentence. The court will have told you the consequences of you breaching it.
“When people breach suspended sentences, the starting point is for the court to activate the sentences unless it is unjust so to do. I am entirely satisfied, in terms of the breach, that it would be entirely just for that sentence to be activated. I can see no reason otherwise.
“You used a weapon. It was a weapon which caused injury which was very unpleasant at the time but has left a lasting scar on your victim’s head, which is noticeable to be seen.”