Lifeguard bashers' sentences upheld

Two men who brutally bashed a Whangarei Heads lifeguard have lost their appeals against their 10-year jail term and six-year non-parole period.
Les Tasos Connelly, 28, and Georgie Abraham Ngaau, 23, were sentenced in July to 10 years in jail, with a minimum non-parole period of six years, for bashing lifeguard Jim Bidois.
They were given the toughest minimum non-parole term possible, 60 per cent of the overall sentence.
Connelly and Ngaau were found guilty in May by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, to Mr Bidois on December 3, 2006.
Their co-accused, Brandon Cole McMahon, 19, was found not guilty on that charge, but had earlier pleaded guilty to assaulting a junior lifeguard - the initial attack that prompted Mr Bidois to intervene.
Ngaau and Connelly appealed their sentence and non-parole period to the Court of Appeal, which this week rejected their pleas.
Mr Bidois had to wear a halo apparatus to keep his neck perfectly still for at least three to four months after the savage beating Connelly and Ngaau inflicted on him. It left him with permanent scarring and Mr Bidois still suffers from both long and short-term memory loss. He also experiences speech and communication issues and was not able to drive or return to work.
Lawyers Chris Muston, for Connelly, and John Watson, for Ngaau, argued that the sentences and non-parole period were manifestly excessive.
Mr Watson also argued that they were wrong in principle. Both counsel criticised sentencing Judge John McDonald's assessment of the facts.
However, the Appeal Court said the criticism of the judge making his own assessment of the facts was without foundation.
"The judge in a jury trial is effectively the 13th fact-finder. Where, following a verdict of guilty the judge is required to sentence a prisoner, the judge is entitled, where the evidence supports it, to reach his or her own view of the facts relevant to sentencing provided that such view is not inconsistent with the verdict," the court said.
"The judge was well placed to form his own view of the facts, including the appellants' behaviour and culpability."
The defence also took objection to comments that Mr Bidois was carrying out duties as a lifeguard on the day and the judge's acceptance that a lifeguard was a public official.
"It is correct that the position of a lifeguard is a voluntary one and that a lifeguard has no statutory authority. Also Mr Bidois was not wearing a lifeguard uniform, although he was with [another lifeguard] who was wearing a uniform. But all of that was acknowledged by the judge," the court said.
In relation to the non-parole period, the court found that Judge McDonald was also entitled to find that it was necessary to impose a minimum term to denounce the conduct the appellants had engaged in, to deter others and to protect the public.
"Those considerations were appropriate given the nature and severity of the incident in this case and the past history of the appellants."
Mr Bidois' wife Sue said the couple were delighted that the court deemed the beating to be so serious that it warranted the sentence.
"I'm just so pleased that this legal part of things is now finally over and we can move on to a degree," Mrs Bidois said.
However, Mr Bidois' injuries were permanent and debilitating reminders of that day just over two years ago.