Making a charge stick !

The options before the Director of Public Prosecutions  ( DPP ) have just notched up to a higher grade with the news that Daniel Christie has died.    This eighteen year old was celebrating the new year in Kings Cross when he became the victim of a " King Hit " - or as it is now renamed - a " Coward Punch " delivered by a complete stranger.

That punch's aftermath caused this young man to lapse into a coma and for eleven days he hovered between life and death.   He lost that battle - and now the DPP must decide which charge to lay against his assailant.

There are two options - Murder or Manslaughter !    In similar cases in the past the DPP has allowed the attacker to plead guilty to manslaughter, avoiding a trial and escaping with gaol time of just a few years.  The fact that this offence has grown in numbers has thrown the spotlight of the media to seek answers - and to tailor the punishment to the crime.

The basic difference of interpretation between murder and manslaughter is that murder requires an " intention to kill ".    A well instructed jury could believe that the assailant did not expect that outcome and therefore that intent was missing.  It could be argued that death was an unexpected outcome.   The reason the blow was struck is immaterial - just so long as it was not intended to cause death.

Perhaps we need a law change to clarify exactly what responsibility an assailant undertakes when delivering a blow of such severity as to cause " grievous bodily harm " or which constitutes " reckless indifference towards human life ".   The task of a jury is to decide on precisely what the law stipulates, and we now seem to be facing a new requirement to clarify that law so that the requirements to bring in a verdict of murder are quite clear.

There is a fine line between many actions that cause a death.   When someone fires a gun or drives a car in such a manner that harm to others is a likely outcome, that person shows reckless indifference towards human life - but does not consciously intend to cause death.    The outcome is the same.   In many cases, someone dies.

The people who frame the law now need to consider whether " intention to kill " falls within the actions of " indifferent to the outcome ".     If an assailant takes action that has a high chance of ending someone else's life the charge of manslaughter seems to just confer the element of  " luck ".     It infers that the victim was " unlucky " rather than that the assailant was intentionally guilty of subjecting that persons fate to " life's lottery ".

The people who today deliver a " Coward punch " as their form of entertainment do so with the full knowledge that it may cause death.   It would seem a simple solution to include the punishment for this type of offence to be identical with that of " willful murder ".

The law - is just what the framers of that law - intend it to be !