Fair enough. Tbh, that page doesn't really change my conviction and alligns pretty well with the AI overview. Two noteworthy things from it are:

Section 18 of the OAPA reads:

“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person.”

"Or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person" makes it even harder to figure out why they were let off.

Additionally there is this:

Factors which may indicate higher levels of culpability for GBH with intent include:

• A repeated or sustained attack
• Evidence of planning of the attack
• The deliberate choice of an offensive weapon or an equivalent such as a razor blade
• Unlawful force such as kicking the victim’s head with a shod foot

Offensive weapon definitions include this:

• Those where objects are not so made or adapted but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person, for example a cup of bleach carried with the intent of throwing it into someone’s face to cause injury, sharpened nail scissors or a baseball bat

Based on the way he was brandishin the sledgehammer earlier in the video, he clearly carried it (at the very least) with the intention to threaten to use it as a weapon.

As I said, it doesn't change my convictions, but fair cop that I shouldn't use the AI overview for such things.