Getting it right !

It is understandable that the relatives of a victim killed in an act of violence are appalled when the perpetrator is charged with " manslaughter " instead of " murder ".

This is an emotional response that ignores the definitions carefully crafted into the laws that the courts are obliged to follow.    The prosecution must establish that there was an intent to cause death.  In many cases, this walks a fine line that could be interpretted differently by many people.

One case that has recently come to court involved a young man who got his kicks by " king hitting " total strangers as he walked the streets of Sydney's Kings Cross.  On the night in question, he hit five other young men - and one of them hit his head when he fell to the pavement - causing fatal brain damage.

The prosecutor faced a knotty problem.   These were unprovoked attacks, but it is unlikely that the perpetrator intended to kill any of his victims.   The fact that four of the five survived without fatal damage suggested that while death was caused as a result of the action, it was not caused by an " intention to kill " !

The defence has the right to point out this definition of the crime of murder, and a properly instructed jury would be unlikely to convict.   The prosecution got it right in down grading the charge to manslaughter - and accordingly a lesser penalty is involved.

This particular case awaits sentencing and it is unlikely that whatever is handed down will satisfy relatives of the deceased.      No hard and fast rule applies and the penalty will rest with the judge - within a scale of limits set by precedents.

Sadly, it is almost certain to go to appeal.   If the judge hands down a " soft " penalty there will be pressure for the prosecution to appeal, and if he takes a " severe " stance the defence will claim that it is " excessive ".

Some will be heartened by a courageous judge in the United States who handed down a sentence to a man who enslaved and systematically raped three young women - holding them captive in his home for over ten years.

That sentence was for life - without any hope of parole - and just to make sure he never gets free - the judge tacked on an additional sentence of a thousand years !

That sort of " justice " is unlikely to happen here !