Being drunk isn't a defence, of anything, not in WA (or I didnt pay attention in class) maybe the judge was just saying that (because its true) but im fairly sure they couldn't use being intoxicated as a legal defence, it might have swayed her reasoning on other legal matters one way or the other, but it can't be the point her judgement stands onOne could suggest that Williams plea of not guilty also demonstrates a lack of remorse. Could have saved the WA judicial system quite a bit of money by pleading guilty, saving the need for a trial, when a guilty verdict was always going to be the outcome.
One thing people need to be careful of (& I don't mean you MEB) is not confusing Williams' subsequent demonstration of charity with the Salvos as anything other than an attempt to mitigate the sentence he knew was coming his way. I see in his post sentence statement that he says he has hurt & let a number of people down, but yet again fails to specifically acknowledge that he actually broke somebody's jaw in an act of unjustifiable violence.
As for the judge's comments:
‘‘Had you been sober, had you been more mature, you would have let the matter drop,’’ Judge Wager said. ‘‘But for the aggression shown to you earlier, you would not have been involved in this matter.’’
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...harm-charge-20140422-zqxri.html#ixzz2ziDb1H1i
What a crock of s**t. If you can't control your behaviour after a few 'sherbets', well perhaps consuming alcohol is not for you. This judge has set back the 'one punch can kill' cause with her lenient sentence & her comments. I get sick of hearing defence lawyers & judges trying to mitigate someone's responsibility on the basis they were drunk. Such a defence can't be relied on for charges of drink driving, causing death or serious injury, so why should it be an excuse in the case of GBH charges.