Bunnings customer suffers from injury after a sudden, 'excessive' attack

It's a scenario that seems more akin to a horror movie than a trip to your local hardware store.

For one unsuspecting couple, a routine visit to Bunnings Warehouse turned into a nightmare that would leave physical and psychological scars.


On an ordinary morning last 11 March 2022, shoppers at the Bunnings Warehouse in South Penrith were going about their business when violence struck without warning.

Christopher Dent, a man under the influence of drugs, picked up an axe from the store's shelves.

In a drug-induced haze, Dent attacked a stranger from behind, causing a three-centimetre laceration to the victim's head and knocking him unconscious.


compressed-pexels-axe.jpeg
Christopher Dent used an axe to knock an innocent customer out. Image Credit: Pexels/César Guillotel


A Bunnings employee reportedly heard a 'loud crack’—a noise that echoed the shock and fear that rippled through the store.

Dent, described as having a 'blank stare', walked away from the scene, leaving bystanders in disbelief over the sudden violence.

The aftermath of the attack was as shocking as the incident.


The victim, who had been shopping with his wife, also suffered from a concussion.

The victim experienced ongoing headaches, dizziness, and a constant ringing in his ears, indicative of hearing loss.

The psychological toll was heavy, as the victim was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, memory loss, and post-concussion syndrome.

Justice Richard Weinstein presided over Dent’s case.

Justice Weinstein described the attack as 'significant and unprovoked', which emphasised the long-term harm inflicted on a stranger.

Dent admitted to the authorities that he was high on ice at the time of the attack.

However, Dent suggested that the drug might have been 'laced' with something else, as it made him paranoid and altered his behaviour.


Dent was sentenced to five years and four months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years.

Dent appealed the sentence and claimed that it was 'excessive'.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

‘As has been repeatedly said in this court, there is no one correct sentence,’ Justice Weinstein said.

‘In my opinion, His Honour (Judge Craig Everson) balanced all sentencing considerations and arrived at a sentence that was neither unreasonable nor unjust and was within the range of available sentences.’

This incident raised critical questions about public safety.

It also raised concerns about individuals needing help when struggling with substance abuse.

For vulnerable community members, it's a stark reminder of the unpredictability of public spaces and the need for vigilance.
Key Takeaways

  • A man was attacked with an axe by a stranger while shopping at Bunnings in South Penrith.
  • The assailant, Christopher Dent, was sentenced to over five years in prison but appealed the sentence.
  • The victim suffered serious injuries, including a three-centimetre laceration on his head, and long-term effects like PTSD and post-concussion syndrome.
  • The attack was described by Justice Weinstein as ‘significant and unprovoked’, which resulted in long-term harm to the victim.
Have you or someone you know been affected by a similar incident? How did you cope, and what advice would you give to others? Your insights could be invaluable to someone in our community facing their own challenges, so please share them with us in the comments below.
 

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
In my opinion, if somebody grabs a hand axe and hits somebody else on the head with it from behind, the intent is to kill, nothing less. So, the charge is attempted murder.

The whole idea that the person was under the influence of drugs at the time should be no excuse because they willingly took the drug, knowing it is illegal, and went on to attack somebody else that is completely innocent. I am personally against the concept that a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol is somehow less responsible for their actions than a person who is 'straight'. It creates legal loopholes during sentencing that should not exist. The reality is that the perpetrator willingly took the drugs or alcohol knowing that it would influence their behaviour. So whatever crimes that might be committed under that influence ought not to be reduced in any way, especially if the drug taken is an illicit drug that they acquired intending to use it for that very purpose (i.e. to get 'high', 'stoned', drunk, or whatever). Our world would be a much safer place if the rights of victims were the primary considerations in law.
 
In my opinion, if somebody grabs a hand axe and hits somebody else on the head with it from behind, the intent is to kill, nothing less. So, the charge is attempted murder.

The whole idea that the person was under the influence of drugs at the time should be no excuse because they willingly took the drug, knowing it is illegal, and went on to attack somebody else that is completely innocent. I am personally against the concept that a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol is somehow less responsible for their actions than a person who is 'straight'. It creates legal loopholes during sentencing that should not exist. The reality is that the perpetrator willingly took the drugs or alcohol knowing that it would influence their behaviour. So whatever crimes that might be committed under that influence ought not to be reduced in any way, especially if the drug taken is an illicit drug that they acquired intending to use it for that very purpose (i.e. to get 'high', 'stoned', drunk, or whatever). Our world would be a much safer place if the rights of victims were the primary considerations in law.
Very well written. I totally agree.
 
5 years & 4 months sentence is NOT long enough for such a horrendous attack. And he’s claiming that it’s excessive?

Our judicial laws really need to be vamped up. It’s a wonder he didn’t get a slap on the wrist & made do community work…….as a lot of that happens now.
 
The victims of crime are always the ones that come off second best. They do not choose to be a victim, especially when they are going about their daily lives. The perpetrator of a crime regardless of drug effects, choose to commit the crime, the victim does not. Our laws and punishments are all in favour of the perpetrator who can have all the excuses under the sun, but the victim has little consideration and ends up paying for the rest of their lives psychologically or physically or both.
 
Our judicial system is totally fucked, had his victim been a judge's family member or highly respected legal/political person, he'd get the maximum
possible sentence and that would still be better treatment than what many pensioners have to put up with.
 
My friend shopping at Bunnings saw a teen with a machete in a scabbard attached to his belt. Reported but he disappeared. How on earth he wasn’t spotted was beyond.me, they lock up paint these dangerous tools need locking up as well. Never thought I would see that this thus could gapped in our country
 
In my opinion, if somebody grabs a hand axe and hits somebody else on the head with it from behind, the intent is to kill, nothing less. So, the charge is attempted murder.

The whole idea that the person was under the influence of drugs at the time should be no excuse because they willingly took the drug, knowing it is illegal, and went on to attack somebody else that is completely innocent. I am personally against the concept that a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol is somehow less responsible for their actions than a person who is 'straight'. It creates legal loopholes during sentencing that should not exist. The reality is that the perpetrator willingly took the drugs or alcohol knowing that it would influence their behaviour. So whatever crimes that might be committed under that influence ought not to be reduced in any way, especially if the drug taken is an illicit drug that they acquired intending to use it for that very purpose (i.e. to get 'high', 'stoned', drunk, or whatever). Our world would be a much safer place if the rights of victims were the primary considerations in law.
Couldn’t agree more. Manslaughter st least
 
It was attempted murder
He should get life!
It would be difficult for a charge of "attempted murder" to stick as there is no evidence of premeditation in this act. The offender did not know his victim so any association between the both parties is not evident.

And there is no such charge as "attempted manslaughter" but the charge of "Intent to kill" or "cause grievous bodily harm" may apply.

Almost ten years ago, I was charged with "attempted murder" and "use of a controlled weapon". I represented myself in court and the prosecution dropped the two charges due to fabricated evidence by the plaintiff.

But I know SFA about the law!
 
There was a similar incident in a Coles shop last year where an assistance was stabbed in the back with a knife, both of these incidents could have resulted in the death of the victim and in my opinion the law must be changed as both cases were attempted murder and should have resulted in a MINIMUM of 10 years jail without parole.
 
I have spent 39 years working in the 'legal system' and I have formulated a number of ideas about its worth, failures and the people who administer sentencing. Some of which follow: Magistrates fought to wear 'black robes' because they all watch Judge Judy and others in Yankee land and wanted to be like them. District, Supreme and High Court Judges worry if their wigs are on straight and their robes are neatly pressed. Barristers are the same, Solicitors, in my experience and what I have seen, including arresting some of them are as corrupt as some of the criminals they represent. Listen to some of these Judges in their 'summing up' speeches, they dribble on telling the Court that the matter they are dealing with is 'one of the worst they have seen in their career.. this dribble lasts longer than the 'sentence they hand down. The 'administers of justice' have forgotten that a victim exists in all this and they are quickly brushed aside because the accused had a 'bad childhood, or he wasn't allowed to have a pet, or the barman at the pub forced him to drink 273 schooners of beer before he drove, his drug addiction was forced on him by his peers and the best and most common 'excuse' used, and this is now the new 'norm', his legal rep. wants a mental health report on his client who, had suddenly developed numerous 'mental health issues', that had never been diagnosed before in his lifetime. Lastly Ministers, do-gooders and so-called experts, get a lookin. When legal Legistration is being drafted, these people, including the Legal Advisors within the Parliament help with the drafting. Some/maybe all of them, shouldn't be allowed near a pen and paper... I have seen many new laws come into force and then within a matter of months, they had to be 'fixed' as they were full of 'loop-holes', vague and/or open to interpretation which made them unworkable. I will only mention one example of this, it was in NSW, the Premier Wran, repealed the Summary Offences Act and replaced it with the Offences in Public Places Act. It was pointed out to the Premier that this new Act was unworkable at many levels, failed to cover most of the offences that were listed in the original Act and was grossly open to interpretation making it almost impossible to get a conviction when the matter was brought to Court. The 'new Act' had to be severely modified with new ammendants which saw most of the original Act brought back in. I have said a lot, and definately not all, however, when I joined 'the job' I was sitting in the paddy wagon between a Sergeant and a Sen.Const. when the Sergeant asked me 'what I thought my role was.' I replied, 'For truth and justice the Aust. way.' His reply, 'Don't be a smart arse son, your job is to arrest them and put them before the Court, whatever happens after that you have no control over.' He was absolutely correct and from what I have witnessed over the years is, it has been breaking down faster and faster with the crime rate increasing and more and more criminals getting 'off' under a host of 'excuses'. The 'symbol of justice' is a lady, holding scales, a sword and wearing a blindfold, I think the blindfold is the most used item out of all of them.
Sorry about the length, if I have something to say, I say it..... have a great day.
 
In my opinion, if somebody grabs a hand axe and hits somebody else on the head with it from behind, the intent is to kill, nothing less. So, the charge is attempted murder.

The whole idea that the person was under the influence of drugs at the time should be no excuse because they willingly took the drug, knowing it is illegal, and went on to attack somebody else that is completely innocent. I am personally against the concept that a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol is somehow less responsible for their actions than a person who is 'straight'. It creates legal loopholes during sentencing that should not exist. The reality is that the perpetrator willingly took the drugs or alcohol knowing that it would influence their behaviour. So whatever crimes that might be committed under that influence ought not to be reduced in any way, especially if the drug taken is an illicit drug that they acquired intending to use it for that very purpose (i.e. to get 'high', 'stoned', drunk, or whatever). Our world would be a much safer place if the rights of victims were the primary considerations in law.
HEAR HEAR!!
 
In my opinion, if somebody grabs a hand axe and hits somebody else on the head with it from behind, the intent is to kill, nothing less. So, the charge is attempted murder.

The whole idea that the person was under the influence of drugs at the time should be no excuse because they willingly took the drug, knowing it is illegal, and went on to attack somebody else that is completely innocent. I am personally against the concept that a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol is somehow less responsible for their actions than a person who is 'straight'. It creates legal loopholes during sentencing that should not exist. The reality is that the perpetrator willingly took the drugs or alcohol knowing that it would influence their behaviour. So whatever crimes that might be committed under that influence ought not to be reduced in any way, especially if the drug taken is an illicit drug that they acquired intending to use it for that very purpose (i.e. to get 'high', 'stoned', drunk, or whatever). Our world would be a much safer place if the rights of victims were the primary considerations in law.
The common excuse is that someone who maims, attacks or kills under the influence of drugs should be treated and pay the same consequences as if the person were not taking any drugs.
If they do these things, it is still embedded in their psychology and inner thoughts, but when uninhibited, they carry out things most people never act on unless released by a substance or stress. get so angry when 'under the influence of ICE is the most common of all unprovoked attacks now. It is still the same crime. it is still the same person who does it. No excuses for the heartache others have to live with after their assaults or families with loved ones murdered.
 
I have spent 39 years working in the 'legal system' and I have formulated a number of ideas about its worth, failures and the people who administer sentencing. Some of which follow: Magistrates fought to wear 'black robes' because they all watch Judge Judy and others in Yankee land and wanted to be like them. District, Supreme and High Court Judges worry if their wigs are on straight and their robes are neatly pressed. Barristers are the same, Solicitors, in my experience and what I have seen, including arresting some of them are as corrupt as some of the criminals they represent. Listen to some of these Judges in their 'summing up' speeches, they dribble on telling the Court that the matter they are dealing with is 'one of the worst they have seen in their career.. this dribble lasts longer than the 'sentence they hand down. The 'administers of justice' have forgotten that a victim exists in all this and they are quickly brushed aside because the accused had a 'bad childhood, or he wasn't allowed to have a pet, or the barman at the pub forced him to drink 273 schooners of beer before he drove, his drug addiction was forced on him by his peers and the best and most common 'excuse' used, and this is now the new 'norm', his legal rep. wants a mental health report on his client who, had suddenly developed numerous 'mental health issues', that had never been diagnosed before in his lifetime. Lastly Ministers, do-gooders and so-called experts, get a lookin. When legal Legistration is being drafted, these people, including the Legal Advisors within the Parliament help with the drafting. Some/maybe all of them, shouldn't be allowed near a pen and paper... I have seen many new laws come into force and then within a matter of months, they had to be 'fixed' as they were full of 'loop-holes', vague and/or open to interpretation which made them unworkable. I will only mention one example of this, it was in NSW, the Premier Wran, repealed the Summary Offences Act and replaced it with the Offences in Public Places Act. It was pointed out to the Premier that this new Act was unworkable at many levels, failed to cover most of the offences that were listed in the original Act and was grossly open to interpretation making it almost impossible to get a conviction when the matter was brought to Court. The 'new Act' had to be severely modified with new ammendants which saw most of the original Act brought back in. I have said a lot, and definately not all, however, when I joined 'the job' I was sitting in the paddy wagon between a Sergeant and a Sen.Const. when the Sergeant asked me 'what I thought my role was.' I replied, 'For truth and justice the Aust. way.' His reply, 'Don't be a smart arse son, your job is to arrest them and put them before the Court, whatever happens after that you have no control over.' He was absolutely correct and from what I have witnessed over the years is, it has been breaking down faster and faster with the crime rate increasing and more and more criminals getting 'off' under a host of 'excuses'. The 'symbol of justice' is a lady, holding scales, a sword and wearing a blindfold, I think the blindfold is the most used item out of all of them.
Sorry about the length, if I have something to say, I say it..... have a great day.
Great post .
 
In my opinion, if somebody grabs a hand axe and hits somebody else on the head with it from behind, the intent is to kill, nothing less. So, the charge is attempted murder.

The whole idea that the person was under the influence of drugs at the time should be no excuse because they willingly took the drug, knowing it is illegal, and went on to attack somebody else that is completely innocent. I am personally against the concept that a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol is somehow less responsible for their actions than a person who is 'straight'. It creates legal loopholes during sentencing that should not exist. The reality is that the perpetrator willingly took the drugs or alcohol knowing that it would influence their behaviour. So whatever crimes that might be committed under that influence ought not to be reduced in any way, especially if the drug taken is an illicit drug that they acquired intending to use it for that very purpose (i.e. to get 'high', 'stoned', drunk, or whatever). Our world would be a much safer place if the rights of victims were the primary considerations in law.
I agree with you…..if, out of nowhere, someone hit me in the head with an axe and I survived, he’s not going to turn around and say ‘sorry ‘bout that but I was on drugs’ , and expect his sorry to make everything okay again, is he. A crime was committed, a violent crime made all the worse for the drugs….if anything his sentence should be longer so that he’d know what taking drugs will do and he needs to pay for that, not get a lighter sentence because he’s on drugs, or hard done by in any way……makes me really really angry when a crime is committed and the criminal tries to get sympathy ….‘I didn’t know what I was doing’……‘I’m really sorry’….’it was the drugs’ …..I’m an alcoholic and have no memory of what I did’……just shouldn’t wash anymore….
 
My friend shopping at Bunnings saw a teen with a machete in a scabbard attached to his belt. Reported but he disappeared. How on earth he wasn’t spotted was beyond.me, they lock up paint these dangerous tools need locking up as well. Never thought I would see that this thus could gapped in our country
Totally agree. "Dangerous tools" Both the dangerous tools and the dangerous tools using them need locking up
 

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×