10 December 2008

More murder for Canberra

| johnboy
Join the conversation
25

Simon Corbell has announced that Canberra is going to have more murders.

This is not normally considered to be a good thing, but in this case it probably is:

    “The Labor Government will introduce into the Legislative Assembly amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 to reform the offence of murder so that a person can be convicted of the offence when a person dies when the intention of the accused person was to inflict serious harm. Under ACT law as it currently stands an accused person in those circumstances could only be convicted for manslaughter, which carries a lesser maximum penalty than murder.”

Join the conversation

25
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Victims *don’t* generally take the law into their own hands though cleo, so if the justice system fails, then they’ve got nothing.

Even if someone is only convicted of manslaughter, that still carries a term of up to 25 years. It’s sentencing in the ACT that is the problem IMO.

Hi I have just found out that the new laws are not the same as other states, yes they did change the law BUT softly softly easy easy! The current murders awaiting trial will NOT come under the new law, what a load of crap! And they wonder why people (victims)take the law into their own hands. 🙁

fnaah

Hoot hoot hoot!

johnboy There are a lot of laws that need updating, some go back to the convict days and Canberra has lagged behind compared to the rest of Australia

johnboy said :

letting governments make retrospective laws is a lot worse than murder Owl.

That is a bit debatable and probably depends on a number of factors.

We can only prey

You would say that, being an owl.

letting governments make retrospective laws is a lot worse than murder Owl.

What a pity the law wasn’t changed ten years ago, I think the law should apply immeditely, and that goes for charges going through the courts for murder awaiting sentencing! We can only prey.

Just thinking about what Amanda Carter just posted, maybe the laws should be changed to stop the media from blowing things out of proportion, and prevent them from hiding behind the word “allegedly”.

If they want to say something there must be facts, with people willing to stand behind them, and they must not print rumors or other non-facts (eg every point made must be sourced). They should also be prevented from creating misleading links in people’s minds. (In other words, not directly saying something, but make people think something happened in a certain way)

Yes I have a very dim view of most media outlets, and I personally believe that anything they say should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

Amanda Carter19:26 am 11 Dec 08

Thank you Boomcat.

My very close friend was murdered in Canberra in this year.
I no longer live in Canberra and was disgusted at the thought of my friend’s killer getting off by the standard of Canberra’s justice system. Many people do not understand the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Lets just hope the the ACT government can get off their arse’s and push it through to pass before my friend’s case.

Just also a quick note to people that read this site – don’t always belive what you read in the media – my friend’s case has been made to sound like a circus involving drugs, home thefts and prostitution – which I can asure you none are involved in her case.
She suffered a horrendous violent death and deserves to rest in peace. Once her case is over, which will most probably be in 2010 – 2011 (unless he pleds guilty)correct details will be released to the media via her family – not Canberra’s local rag! As I’m sure you can understand they are not allowed to talk to the media incase it interfears with her case so her family has the unpleasent task of coping what ever the media decides to make up to gain interest from the public. So please next time you read a article splashed in the paper reserve your judgement as her family are having a hard enough time coming to terms with her horrendous murder.

Thank you.

Yes! it is about time the laws were changed in Canberra, what this means is, if someone murdereds another person you don’t have to prove it was pre-meditated, only intent to murder. I wonder when this new legislation will come into force, the sooner the better! Thats why there has only been one murder charge in Canberra for the last ten years as it was a pre-meditated murder, when Conway paid two thugs to murder his wife and was proven. Yipee!

Hello

Interesting discussion about the mechanics of “murder” versus “manslaughter”.

“Murder”, despite being commonly used to describe any incidence of one human killing another, actually has a technical legal meaning.

Generally speaking, all crimes require the proof of a “physical element” (also known by its latin name “actus reus”) and a “mental element” (“mens rea”). As the old saying goes, “a guilty mind must accompany the guilty act for a person to be liable for criminal punishment”.

In (I believe) all other States and Territories the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt to secure a murder conviction:
Physical elements – A person causes the death of another human being
Mental element – The killer intends to cause the death OR the killer intends to cause grievous bodily harm OR the killer acted with reckless indifference to human life (ie the prosecution must prove that the killer actually foresaw the probability that the deadly act would kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the victim but proceeded with the act regardless).

If the prosecution cannot prove either of those mental elements, then generally speaking the wrongful killing will be classified as “manslaughter” rather than “murder”. A classic example is where someone dies as a result of a single punch to the head in a pub fight (this happens frequently). The person committed a wrongful act that resulted in the death of another, however never intended nor foresaw the possibility of causing death or grievous bodily harm to the victim, thus manslaughter rather than murder.

In the ACT however, the prosecution must prove that the accused either intended to cause the death OR acted with reckless indifference to human life to secure a murder conviction. In other words, unlike other states and territories, it is not sufficient to prove that they intended to cause grievous bodily harm. In the ACT, if the prosecution can only prove an intention to cause GBH, the accused can only be convicted of manslaughter.

I believe that Mr Corbell’s change is designed to bring the ACT in line with all other states and territories, so that now an intention to cause GBH will be sufficient to found a murder charge.

For completeness, I believe that the prosecution could establish all the elements of murder in Anu Singh and Glenn Porritt’s case, however the charge was reduced to manslaughter by way of the partial defence of “diminished responsibility” (kind of like a mini version of insanity), but I haven’t looked at those cases in detail for ages so I can’t remember for sure.

Yes Glenn Porrit, Anu Singh et al. This change in definition is just a legal technicality. It doesn’t mean a thing while the sentences for people convicted for both murder and manslaughter are so low in the ACT.

How about imposing some minimum sentences for either offence, or would that be too close to actually doing something rather than grandstanding?

I’m reminded of the fable about the horse and the gate. This all came about because in any other jurisdiction in Australia Glenn Porrit would be serving a long sentence for murder not a couple of years for manslaughter.

How you can stab someone 58 times without the intention to kill them is beyond me……….well unless your an acupuncturist……. ahh see it wasn’t beyond me. Mind you that guy used a knife

off i go now

tylersmayhem2:19 pm 10 Dec 08

I think there would have to be consideration given to the examples Jim Jones has posted here.

Of curse, if you shove someone and they fall over, split their head and die by accident = manslaughter.

But beating the crap out of someone until they become unconcious, and often continuing the pummeling after that – then “it was by accident” should not slide. The only reason those types of f**kers say it was by accident is because they don’t want longer prison time. It’s the extreme of anti-social behavior. Get them away from the genteral public for as long as possible please!

Wouldn’t it be easier just to jack up the maximum penalty for manslaughter and leave the divide at intent to kill vs intent to harm?

Gungahlin Al12:08 pm 10 Dec 08

A positive change. However I’m sure the solicitors will have a field day building the body of case law that defines “serious”.

“If you are having an verbal argument with someone and your intention isn’t to inflict serious harm then it’s not murder.”

Yep. Realised this just after I’d posted.

Obviously I’m an idiot.

Thanks Whatsup.

Yeah what Whatsup said.

Personally I prefer the classic definition of murder, however in saying that I think the sentences for manslaughter should reflect the actions and intentions of the person.

ie, if they intended to inflict grievous bodiy harm, it should be manslaughter but their sentence should be hefty.

Still, that’s more word games than anything else. As long as people in the US get 8 years for dealing marijuana while people in the ACT get basically nothing for murder, I think the world is pretty crazy.

Jim Jones said :

Surely there’s a big difference between getting in a fight with someone (and a subsequent accidental death) and actually going out of your way to kill someone.

What if someone is arguing with another person, shoves them in the chest, and they trip over and split their head open – I don’t think that would justify a murder conviction, manslaughter would seem entirely adequate in many cases.

If you are having an verbal argument with someone and your intention isn’t to inflict serious harm then it’s not murder. If you decide to rough them up a bit, throw some punches and push them around then you are on notice. Put the brain in gear before throwing your weight around.

Pommy bastard11:26 am 10 Dec 08

I have no problem with this.

What if someone is arguing with another person, shoves them in the chest, and they trip over
Or if they have a heart attack and die, and you didn’t know they had a heart condition.

Surely those two would still incur a manslaughter charge.

But I agree that weapons used with violence should incur a stronger charge.

A thought – what if the person doing the shoving was a martial arts expert, and shoves with extreme malice?

Surely there’s a big difference between getting in a fight with someone (and a subsequent accidental death) and actually going out of your way to kill someone.

What if someone is arguing with another person, shoves them in the chest, and they trip over and split their head open – I don’t think that would justify a murder conviction, manslaughter would seem entirely adequate in many cases.

Agreed, Ant. If you intend to inflict serious harm on someone and they die, that’s murder. Pure and simple. I’d prefer idiots be charged for this and then have to prove/disprove their level of intent etc. in court than be charged with a lesser offence before the case even starts.

About time! It’s ludicrous that someone gets a slap on the wrist Manslaughter when, after kicking the crap out of someone, or sticking knives in them, they happen to die. If you bash someone up and they die, it’s murder cos you killed them and it wasn’t an accident.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.