Keith Edward Thurston-Moon to remain behind bars for Cloverdale whipper snipper attack after losing appeal

A Perth lawnmower man who was jailed for attacking a man with a whipper snipper while yelling “run, fat boy” — inflicting a wound to his buttocks — has failed in a bid to trim his sentence on appeal. Keith Edward Thurston-Moon was jailed earlier this year for 18 months after pleading guilty to being armed in a way that may cause fear and doing an act that caused bodily harm to the victim in Cloverdale last August. Thurston-Moon appealed the jail term — and the length of it — in the Supreme Court, arguing it was “manifestly excessive”, however the court found the sentence was not “unreasonable” nor “unjust”. Thurston-Moon, 42, who owned a Jim’s Mowing franchise, was sitting outside a deli when he became embroiled in an argument with the victim, who was asking members of the public for money to buy The gardener then walked to his car and armed himself with a whipper snipper, revving it outside a liquor store, shouting “run, fat boy” and “run fat c...” before the victim emerged and tried to walk away. After lunging at the victim with the lawn trimmer and hitting the victim’s arm, but not causing injury, the victim ran away and Thurston-Moon retreated to his colleagues. However, then, without provocation, Thurston-Moon ran across the street with the whipper snipper’s line spinning, lunging at the victim again and “inflicting multiple bleeding lacerations to (his) buttocks”. “The appellant walked back to his colleagues with the whipper snipper. As he did so, he smiled and gestured to them with a thumbs up,” the appeal judgment said. In his appeal, Thurston-Moon had argued the sentencing judge had erred when taking into account the potential significant harm he could have caused with the grass cutting tool when imposing the sentence. He also argued the sentence was “manifestly excessive” as to “type and length”. But the Court of Appeal disagreed on both grounds, finding in “such unpredictable and sudden circumstances” the whipper snipper could have cut the victim in areas such as his genitals, hands, fingers, or if he had crouched or fallen, his face, eyes or ears. It was also found that given the “very serious” offences, “they did not permit a shorter term of imprisonment or leave open a suspended or conditionally suspended term of imprisonment”. “At all times, the appellant was the aggressor,” the judgment said. “He chose to walk to his work vehicle, pick up the whipper snipper from the trailer and, over a period of minutes, pursue his unarmed and vulnerable victim. “It is clear from the appellant's words and actions that he was intent upon inflicting harm and, by giving his colleagues the ‘thumbs up’, was pleased with himself for what he had done.” The appeal judges added that Thurston-Moon’s conduct was “completely senseless”. “Plainly, he was angry and his Honour found that the appellant acted out of some sense of vigilantism. “Apart from describing what occurred as ‘a moment of madness’, the offending has not been explained.”