Only In the ACT Supreme Court

VG: Any other eggs they can teach you to suck? Sorry, her post just made me laugh. If you didn’t know the difference between murder and manslaughter I would fear for the ADF considerably!

One thing though, they are called Lawyers here too, especially if they are a Barrister AND Solicitor. (LG, who only knows because her mother was a solicitor and is now a Lawyer) (Who’d have thought she’d come in handy for something????)

Thank you Jennifer for explaining what I already know. Suffice to say that I am well across the subject. Defence solicitors (as they are called in Australia) aren’t ‘always’ looking for NG pleas but in my vast experience in the Mag and Sup courts they will and regularly do raise the most ridiculous defences that wastes the courts time.

Assiduously? So at least 5 different barristers (3 DPP and 2 defence) have agreed twice to the facts but somehow the CJ finds that little extra. Have a look at the man’s track record and see how many patently ridiculous decisions he has made that have been overturned (the overturning often being unreported). He is not unbiased, to say the least. Many people need not employ defence counsel, the CJ will do it for them for free

(Personal, not professional opinion)

It isn’t as simple as all that. Murder requires the crown to prove the accused intended to cause death or was “recklessly indifferent” to causing death. Manslaughter is more complicated because there are various categories and defences available. For example, where self defence is claimed but the force used was excessive, provocation as a defence, diminished responsibility. There is also “involuntary manslaughter”. You are wrong to think defence lawyers are always looking for a plea of not guilty. Most accused want to plead guilty from the start and some lawyers encourage that, even if the charge is defendable.We should all be grateful the Chief Justice does his job as assiduously as he does.

Ah, well i’m glad we’ve cleared that up then

I dont think you’ll find that was the case. A defence would look for every reason for a not guilty plea, even at the manslaughter level. The judge isnt inferring the facts point to murder either, he’s saying there isnt enough for manslaughter, despite one of his brethren agreeing previously, as well as both the prosecution and the defence twice

I don’t know all the details but surely if the prosecution was being a bit lazy in the case then the defence would most certainly agree with them?

The definitions of manslaughter and murder are different and if the agreed facts point to murder then hasn’t the judge done the right thing by knocking down this cozy deal?

And then get found not guilty of murder by presenting the same facts that found him able to plead guilty of manslaughter. And walk free.

plead not guilty at the murder trial, draw it out, and cost the government lots of money. all the time continuing to draw reference to the above mtnioned facts