Left bleeding on the side of a remote rural road without a phone or wallet, a man faced the "terrifying and traumatising" prospect of dying alone after a stabbing attack.
He had got into a Subaru Outback with Kalani Joliffe-Cole, 29, thinking he could calm rising tension "because he believed he was with mates," the ACT Supreme Court heard on Tuesday, September 15.
Instead, Joliffe-Cole drove out of Canberra, pulled onto a dirt road, and ordered him out of the vehicle while three other passengers remained inside.
"As the victim got out, he felt the offender strike his head, he then felt several more blows to his chest and a pop to his ribs," Chief Justice Lucy McCallum said during Joliffe-Cole's sentencing.
"He realised he had been stabbed."
The judge described the December 2022 attack as "short but furious," leaving the victim with multiple wounds across his chest, back, and arms, with 16 slash marks tearing through his jacket.
The court heard Joliffe-Cole then drove off, leaving the victim behind.
On Tuesday, Joliffe-Cole was sentenced to seven years and two months in prison, with a non-parole period ending in January 2028, after a jury found him guilty of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The court heard the victim survived only after walking about 350 metres down the road, where a passing motorist spotted him and called triple zero while another driver stopped to give emergency first aid.
"A police officer drove the ambulance to the hospital to allow the paramedics to work on the victim, whose injuries were life threatening," Chief Justice McCallum said.
"It is appropriate here to acknowledge the courage and kindness of the people who stopped to assist the victim, as well as the quick actions and skill of the paramedics and emergency medical staff who treated him."
She said those actions "very likely" saved the man's life.
The victim spent two days in hospital, where he received a blood transfusion and underwent surgery for his injuries. The court heard he has since mostly recovered.
The court heard the man had gone to a mutual friend's home in Canberra earlier that day to warn an acquaintance about a video allegedly showing threats made against that person.
The acquaintance arrived at the house shortly after alongside Joliffe-Cole.
The victim and Joliffe-Cole had "been in each other's orbit" for a couple of years, Chief Justice McCallum said.
Upon Joliffe-Cole's arrival, the victim reported sensing "immediate hostility" from his soon-to-be attacker.
He also said his warning was met with "suspicion rather than appreciation" by the acquaintance, who was a "longstanding" friend of Joliffe-Cole.
Believing he was going to another friend's house, the victim agreed to get into the car with the group, only to realise that was not the case as Joliffe-Cole drove out of the city.
At trial, Joliffe-Cole did not deny stabbing the victim; however, he claimed he acted in self-defence after the victim allegedly pulled a gun on him.
Chief Justice McCallum rejected that account.
"I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the victim did not pull a gun or indeed any weapon on the offender," she said.
Instead, the judge found Joliffe-Cole deliberately took the victim to a remote spot to "give him a flogging of some kind," though she said his exact motive for the "ferocious" attack remained unexplained.
It was alleged during the trial that Joliffe-Cole had taken the victim's phone prior to the attack, but the Chief Justice said she could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it had been deliberately stolen before the stabbing.
She did accept that the attacker was under the influence of methamphetamine when he committed the crime.
During sentencing, the judge noted Joliffe-Cole had a criminal history in NSW and the ACT, including multiple convictions for assault.
In setting his sentence and non-parole period ending in January 2028, the judge said she was required to take into account Joliffe-Cole's previous sentences and time already served in custody.
While accepting that significant childhood disadvantage and drug use reduced his moral culpability to some extent, the judge noted his overall remorse remained limited.
However, she accepted the man had taken some responsibility following the guilty verdict, was at a "turning point" in his life, and was now committed to his family obligations.
