PDA

View Full Version : Man who shot lawrence sentenced to.............................


docker_azza
24 Apr 2008, 20:02
2 1/4 years

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23592728-948,00.html
Todd Cardy
April 24, 2008 03:33pm

THE man who shot dead Bunbury teenager Lawrence Dix over a $100 drug debt was jailed today for a minimum of two years and three months.
Outside court, Mr Dix’s distraught parents slammed the sentence, with his mother Annette declaring that "life is cheap in this town”.

Supreme Court justice Ralph Simmonds sentenced Jack Benjamin Hall, 20, for the manslaughter of Mr Dix, 19, who died in the lounge room of his home in the Bunbury suburb of Dalleyup from a single gunshot wound to the chest on April 1 last year.

His two younger brothers, then aged 13 and 15, witnessed the shooting and attempted in vain to save his life.

Justice Simmonds fixed a term of six and years five months’ jail, which he cut by a third to four years and three months, under the WA’s truth in sentencing legislation.

He backdated the sentence to April last year, giving credit for time in custody.
Hall will be eligible for release on parole from July next year.

Justice Simmonds said he conceded that the shooting of Mr Dix was ``not a willed act" by Hall, who had gone to the house with friends to demand $100 over a drug debt.

He described as ``appalling’’ the actions that lead to Mr Dix’s death.
The court was told Hall shot Mr Dix with a bolt-action 0.22 calibre rifle from the back seat of a car, while another man argued with the teenager on the front lawn.

``There is nothing to support that you intended to kill or indeed harm anyone including Lawrence Dix,’’ Justice Simmonds told the court.

Hall had told police that while he had the gun, which he had taken out of the car’s boot, he did not make a conscious decision to shoot and had only wanted to scare Mr Dix in handing over the money to his friend, the court heard.

Hall later said he had only heard a ``ping’’ before Mr Dix fled inside the house, telling his brother to run.

Justice Simmonds said that despite Hall’s drug-affected state – he had only six hours sleep in the three days before the killing in an amphetamine-fuelled binge – he understood his surroundings and should have been able to control his actions.

He said it was ``gravely dangerous and severely reprehensible’’ to aim a gun at a house.

Justice Simmonds gave credit for Hall’s guilty plea, remorse and prospects for rehabilitation, noting that he had undertaken a variety of programs while in custody including those for drug and alcohol abuse.

Hall, dressed in a black suit and shirt, took a deep breath as he was lead out of the dock and back into custody.

Mrs Dix walked out of court hand-in-hand with her husband Steve, telling waiting reporters that: "life is cheap in this town today.’’

Mr Dix said: ``I hoped for two miracles today.

"The first was my son would come to court - and that’s not going to happen,’’ he said.

"The other miracle might have been that the punishment fit the crime.

``This boy will spend only 15 months in jail for murdering our son - how fair is that?"

Mrs Dix, asked whether the sentence was fair, said: "I don’t really care but something a little bit more than 15 months.

"He has destroyed our family. He has ruined what we had and we had a beautiful, beautiful family.

"My kids won't even be over counselling by the time he's out. Happy Birthday for his 22nd or his 23rd birthday, my son is dead."

Hall’s uncle, Peter Lewis, read a statement on his nephew’s behalf, which told of his profound remorse for actions that lead to ``an accidental death’’.

``His infinite sympathy, and indeed the sympathy from Jack’s family and loved ones, goes to the Dix family on their tragic loss,’’ Mr Lewis said.

``Words cannot express our sorrow.

``From the onset of this tragedy, Jack has wanted to plead guilty to manslaughter and has been willing to face the consequences of such actions.

Mr Lewis said Mr Dix’s death would be Hall’s ``cross to bear’’ and he hoped that others would learn from his mistakes.

In February, a Supreme Court jury failed to reach a verdict on a charge of murder after they were told that Hall was one of four men who went to the house to confront Mr Dix over the drug debt.

During the four-day trial, the court was told Hall had been affected by a cocktail of amphetamines, marijuana and alcohol.

Last month, Hall entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter, in a deal with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In sentencing submissions earlier this week, Hall said he was ``truly sorry’’ for his actions.

The Night Shift
24 Apr 2008, 20:16
What the ____ is wrong with sentencing in this state...
Fair Dinkum
"Truth In Sentencing"
FFS.... :thumbsd::thumbsd::thumbsd:

dockers_bengals
24 Apr 2008, 22:06
A murder charge carries a much bigger sentence than manslaught which is what he pleaded guilty to.I'm not defending the law or him but don't go on a few paragraphs written in the paper as what happened,if you read it also says that a jury couldn't convict him on a murder charge which going on what the paper has wrote doesn't make sense either.

The Night Shift
24 Apr 2008, 23:01
As rediculous as they are at times, the US has one thing right with long long sentences for murder & serious crime convictions....
I see you point D-B but honestly, tell that to his family..
There was no justice in that sentence...

dockers_bengals
24 Apr 2008, 23:34
As rediculous as they are at times, the US has one thing right with long long sentences for murder & serious crime convictions....
I see you point D-B but honestly, tell that to his family..
There was no justice in that sentence...

Like I said I'm not defending him and really to me once he armed himself without any need to he should pay the consequences.What staggers me is that money crimes like fraud etc.. seem to get more time than violent crimes.

Slacker
24 Apr 2008, 23:42
Like I said I'm not defending him and really to me once he armed himself without any need to he should pay the consequences.What staggers me is that money crimes like fraud etc.. seem to get more time than violent crimes.
damn straight. Once you start waving firearms about the manslaughter plea loses credibility.

Sounds like the public prosecutor must have taken the easy option.

FD369
24 Apr 2008, 23:56
damn straight. Once you start waving firearms about the manslaughter plea loses credibility.

Sounds like the public prosecutor must have taken the easy option.


The public prosecutor was hamstrung because the jury could not reach a verdict in the local court.

Rob
25 Apr 2008, 00:07
Cops and/or the DPP going to do anything about him being a drug dealer?

Slacker
25 Apr 2008, 00:08
The public prosecutor was hamstrung because the jury could not reach a verdict in the local court.

I stand corrected.
Still a poor result IMO

Freo Big Fella
25 Apr 2008, 12:56
Hopefully the Bunbury ferals drag the little toerag out into the street and cripple him.:thumbsd:

dockers_bengals
25 Apr 2008, 13:35
The public prosecutor was hamstrung because the jury could not reach a verdict in the local court.

It would of just gone to a retrial.I'm guessing Hall didn't want to take another chance on another jury.There has got to be more to the story if the jury couldn't decide,It doesn't make sense.Why do they offer all the time is beyond me

FD369
25 Apr 2008, 14:23
It didn't go to a retrial because the prosecuter could not be sure another jury could come up with a result.

This bloke would be counting his lucky stars, because of the hung jury he may be out in 15 months and not 15 years.

The Night Shift
25 Apr 2008, 18:01
It's just not right. He purposefully pointed a gun at another person and pulled the trigger. Nothing accidental or spur of the moment in that.
The mudererer think the law and human life is worth sweet ____ all...
I can't see how a short sentence will punish him or rehabilitate him.
What is the murderers name anyway?

summerthebat
27 Apr 2008, 23:26
"There is nothing to support that you intended to kill or indeed harm anyone including Lawrence Dix,’’ Justice Simmonds told the court."



ok.

So basically, if I wanted to kill anyone.... all I would have to do........ is get mad high and drunk..... tell the court I hadn't been sleeping....... fire a shot at my enemy......... and get two and a quarter years?

It almost seems worth it.

kiroshi
28 Apr 2008, 00:40
its the system you felchers voted in. either accept it or start a revolution. in cuba they execute these c___s, they have the right idea.

Belnakor
28 Apr 2008, 11:35
Labor have been stacking the courts with bleeding heart lefties for years - just what was expected to happen. The sentences in WA are an absolute joke, and the fact that in a high profile case like this the judge still gave the guy a relative slap on the wrists shows just how completely out of touch the judges are.

The Night Shift
28 Apr 2008, 14:59
Belnakor - a lot of the same sentencing has happened under the Liberals...

DizzyHB
28 Apr 2008, 22:19
Australian "leaders" just suck in general.

We need a Hitler or a Moussolini.

Belnakor
1 May 2008, 12:59
Belnakor - a lot of the same sentencing has happened under the Liberals...

Both sides are soft on crime unfortunately. Completely out of line with community standards.

dixco
3 May 2008, 00:01
A murder charge carries a much bigger sentence than manslaught which is what he pleaded guilty to.I'm not defending the law or him but don't go on a few paragraphs written in the paper as what happened,if you read it also says that a jury couldn't convict him on a murder charge which going on what the paper has wrote doesn't make sense either.

The trouble with the Justice system DB is that the jury had to make a unanimous verdict in the case of our sons death. Ours was a highly technical Murder case which placed alot of pressure on average people to understand section 279 of the Criminal Code which when detailed confused me and all our supporters. The DPP proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jack Benjamin Hall acted deliberately and consciously to shoot our son from a car parked on our verge in front of our house behind thick bush (Somewhat sniper-like). Even Judge Simmons on day 3 of the trial said that Hall had a case to answer and that the DPP had enough evidence to prove this was Murder. Unfortunately it only takes 1 person out of 12 with enough doubt in their mind to arrive at a no decision. Even the Defence lawyer told the DPP privately on the Wednesday that they "Had it in the Bag".
We were all completely gobsmacked at the result, and further gobsmacked at Judge Simmons sentencing Hall to 77 months discounted to 4 years and 6 months which meant he would effectively serve 2 years and 3 months, which meant he would be out in 15 months because he had already spent 12 months in gaol.
Make sense of that I challenge you!!!

dixco
3 May 2008, 00:06
Like I said I'm not defending him and really to me once he armed himself without any need to he should pay the consequences.What staggers me is that money crimes like fraud etc.. seem to get more time than violent crimes.

Quite right DB!! The law in WA is an ASS!! A man viciously raped his 77 year old neighbour and got 14 years?? At least thats what the paper reported and if that was the maximum it really means he would serve about half that, and yet crimes against property particularly money and corporate crime appear to draw higher sentences - where's the logic in that??

dixco
3 May 2008, 00:13
The public prosecutor was hamstrung because the jury could not reach a verdict in the local court.

Public prosecution in the state use the following mantra "We present the evidence and the Jury makes the decision". They have said that they're not in the business of putting people in gaol only to 'present the evidence and . . . ."
Who represents the innocent victims of crime?? The legal process does not allow the victims any opportunity (Except in presenting a Victim Impact Statement) to have a say. We as victims have been kicked in the guts when all 4 of the boys came to our house to pressure our son into paying a drug debt (Which quite rightly was Lawrence's fault for getting sucked into their stupid culture) and then to take his life, and then we are kicked in the head while we're down when Hall will get out of the big house to celebrate his 22nd birthday. We will continue to celebrate our son's birthdays but unfortunately he won't be hear to enjoy it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dixco
3 May 2008, 00:19
It didn't go to a retrial because the prosecuter could not be sure another jury could come up with a result.

This bloke would be counting his lucky stars, because of the hung jury he may be out in 15 months and not 15 years.

Well FD369 your prediction of 15 months was on the money. Are you psychic or did you know something we didn't?????????????

dixco
3 May 2008, 00:26
It would of just gone to a retrial.I'm guessing Hall didn't want to take another chance on another jury.There has got to be more to the story if the jury couldn't decide,It doesn't make sense.Why do they offer all the time is beyond me

It wasn't Halls' decision it was the DPP's decision not to go to retrial because the Director Robert ____ (Yes ____!!) didn't believe they would get any better result the next time round - and he was quite right in saying that. The thing is if the DPP had provided us with good information before going to trial then we would have pushed to have the trial heard in Perth and not in Busselton (Country WA). Regional juries we were eventually told were notorious for siding with the accused i.e. had often reached hung jury outcomes for a range of reasons. If we had convinced ____ to go to retrial it would've been held once again in the country and most probably reached the same outcome - the system is F***ed.

dixco
3 May 2008, 00:29
"There is nothing to support that you intended to kill or indeed harm anyone including Lawrence Dix,’’ Justice Simmonds told the court."



ok.

So basically, if I wanted to kill anyone.... all I would have to do........ is get mad high and drunk..... tell the court I hadn't been sleeping....... fire a shot at my enemy......... and get two and a quarter years?

It almost seems worth it.

I agree it WOULD almost be worth it. The fact of the matter is the DPP weren't trying to prove that he deliberately aimed the gun to kill Lawrence, they wanted to prove a number of technical aspects of the case that when drawn together is called Technical Murder. Confused ?? We were.

dixco
3 May 2008, 00:33
Labor have been stacking the courts with bleeding heart lefties for years - just what was expected to happen. The sentences in WA are an absolute joke, and the fact that in a high profile case like this the judge still gave the guy a relative slap on the wrists shows just how completely out of touch the judges are.

I agree but it's not the judges fault its all about the LAW!!!!
I we scrapped the following then criminal would get a decent stint in gaol - Truth in Sentencing, Fast Track discounts for Early pleas, no priors, your youth, potential for rehabilitation, automatic 50% discounts for sentences under 4 years, discounts under the parole system.
They sound like a Harvey Normal Sale don't they!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dixco
3 May 2008, 00:35
Belnakor - a lot of the same sentencing has happened under the Liberals...

In fact the Liberals brought in 'Truth In Sentencing' legislation (Read Discounts for criminals) under Richard Courts government back in 2001.

Billy Hunt
3 May 2008, 00:38
My heart felt sympathy to you and your family Dixco.
My kids are my life. If any one harmed any of my kids, I would be waiting for them when they walked out.

bigkev bleeds purple
3 May 2008, 01:54
Dixco my heart goes out to you and your family. No one deserves to have this sort of thing happen to a loved one. I hope that some day you can get justice for the loss of Lawrence. It isn't fair that the filthy low life (and his partners in crime) who took his life can walk away with so few consequences.

Best wishes for any appeals you may choose to pursue.

dixco
4 May 2008, 00:17
My heart felt sympathy to you and your family Dixco.
My kids are my life. If any one harmed any of my kids, I would be waiting for them when they walked out.

Thanks Billy, We really appreciate your kind thoughts and support. Unfortuantely we have to remain victims in this whole sorry case, but I sure would enjoy playing baseball with Jack Hall and his mates - Ben Keiley, Aaron Holbrook and Sean Willcocks. I'm very frustrated and would relish any opportunity to beat the F**k out of them.

I believe Jack will pay dearly eventually but not in this life. I'm not a Buddist or a religious nut but I believe that Karma will deal Jack Hall a painful hand of cards in his next life. This I can only hope. In the meantime I have to fight to change things like the laws governing the legal system and we need everyone behind us. If this means marches on the houses of parliament then we are going to do it.

dixco
4 May 2008, 00:27
Dixco my heart goes out to you and your family. No one deserves to have this sort of thing happen to a loved one. I hope that some day you can get justice for the loss of Lawrence. It isn't fair that the filthy low life (and his partners in crime) who took his life can walk away with so few consequences.

Best wishes for any appeals you may choose to pursue.

Cheers Bigkev.
I don't think we have a hope in hell of getting justice for Lawrence either through the appeals process or other means, but changes to the law may bring satisfaction to others who may suffer under similar circumstances in the future.
We have a few good years left in us (maybe 30 years) to work hard to bring about changes that recognise the needs of victims of crime and to at least apply a term of imprisonment that more closely matches the crime.
We also need to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that the other three purpetrators are brought to account for their actions.

Billy Hunt
4 May 2008, 01:30
Dixco, I have sent you a PM