The Law ABC - "Anita Bloom* never intended to hurt her husband and his new girlfriend."

[Kurve]

I think six years is appropriate given what is presented in the ABC article, which by its own admission is heavily sympathetic to the accused.

This case is quite well known so you're probably familiar with the circumstances. Borce Ristevski, who killed his wife, covered it up, disposed of her body in circumstances of significant aggravation, showed zero remorse, had no history of being a victim of DV, mental illness, PTSD or drug abuse and cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money through a very lengthy investigation only got nine years on the top. He'll do about six.

 

[Number37]

It's complex because - for starters - she was clearly not mentally well when she broke in and attacked them. OK people don't do that. Taking her claims of abuse in good faith, you can also understand someone wanting the context of their actions to be taken into account, as it no doubt would contribute to their irrational actions. But, it's fair to say those things rarely excuse those actions. Maybe mitigate them slightly.

It's definitely an article trying to push the message about absolving blame from the perpetrator. That's fine - people need a reminder sometimes that nothing usually happens in a vacuum.

Real case:
2 dudes go to steal plants from a blokes weed plantation in the middle of the night, out the back of Woop-Woop.
At the time the bloke was stoned and drunk, but he hears them, goes outside, the 2 thieves tackle him and tie him up and torture him.
2 thieves get stoned, bloke gets out of his restraints, grabs a gun, 2 thieves run off , bloke fires wildly into the night, miraculously kills one thief.
Bloke goes back to his little hut, the other thief comes back, there's an altercation, bloke wins the struggle, grabs his gun and tries to shoot the thief, but had run out of bullets, so he pistol whips him and fetches an axe and proceeds to kill the thief with the axe.
Successfully argued provocation/necessity.


That case played a small part in the law changing in relation to provocation/necessity especially as it coincided with court recognition of Battered Wives Syndrome.
When BWS first became a court recognised thing in the late 80's much of the professional opinion that it was based on was later found to be incorrect.
From memory, the professional opinion relied upon was a single expert.
Subsequently it was been refined and for a long time the science behind it was accepted.

Provocation/Necessity is a defence to things like personal crimes (murder, assault etc)
BWS is considered a strand of provocation/necessity. Homosexual advances another.
The issue is that provocation/necessity is a complete defence.
Being a complete defence it means that if you are successful in making your argument you get to walk free.
Ordinarily provocation/necessity is based on a temporal intersection of events, which would exclude delayed actions.
BWS allowed for those delayed actions to be considered as part of an ongoing series of linked events to get around the temporal intersection requirement.

In the debate about provocation/necessity being a complete defence many have argued that it shouldn't be a complete defence, rather, it should become a mitigating factor in sentencing ONLY.

 

[its free real estate]

This case is quite well known so you're probably familiar with the circumstances. Borce Ristevski, who killed his wife, covered it up, disposed of her body in circumstances of significant aggravation, showed zero remorse, had no history of being a victim of DV, mental illness, PTSD or drug abuse and cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money through a very lengthy investigation only got nine years on the top. He'll do about six.

I think most people agree Ristevski’s sentence was ridiculously low.

 

[ShanDog]

In the debate about provocation/necessity being a complete defence many have argued that it shouldn't be a complete defence, rather, it should become a mitigating factor in sentencing ONLY.

Sounds like a reasonable argument.

 

[Collingwoodity]

This case is quite well known so you're probably familiar with the circumstances. Borce Ristevski, who killed his wife, covered it up, disposed of her body in circumstances of significant aggravation, showed zero remorse, had no history of being a victim of DV, mental illness, PTSD or drug abuse and cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money through a very lengthy investigation only got nine years on the top. He'll do about six.

Hmm, not the same though.

Ristevski bartered down to a lower criminal statutory offence because of evidentiary issues. Once that occurred, his lawyers, who know the common law, were aware that the judge who determines the penalty will be bound by the common law legal principle of precedent when sentencing Ristevski. Therefore, the judge can only follow legal precedent when sentencing Ristevski and precedents for that offence are set lower than murder.

If the judge does not follow the common law principle of precedent and sentences Ristevski to a penalty that is manifestly inadequate, he or she will be appealed because he or she will not be applying the law.

The only way this can change is through mandatory or bracketed sentencing. Oddly, there is a great deal of angst amongst some individuals about the possibility of mandatory sentencing.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Real case:
2 dudes go to steal plants from a blokes weed plantation in the middle of the night, out the back of Woop-Woop.
At the time the bloke was stoned and drunk, but he hears them, goes outside, the 2 thieves tackle him and tie him up and torture him.
2 thieves get stoned, bloke gets out of his restraints, grabs a gun, 2 thieves run off , bloke fires wildly into the night, miraculously kills one thief.
Bloke goes back to his little hut, the other thief comes back, there's an altercation, bloke wins the struggle, grabs his gun and tries to shoot the thief, but had run out of bullets, so he pistol whips him and fetches an axe and proceeds to kill the thief with the axe.
Successfully argued provocation/necessity.


That case played a small part in the law changing in relation to provocation/necessity especially as it coincided with court recognition of Battered Wives Syndrome.
When BWS first became a court recognised thing in the late 80's much of the professional opinion that it was based on was later found to be incorrect.
From memory, the professional opinion relied upon was a single expert.
Subsequently it was been refined and for a long time the science behind it was accepted.

Provocation/Necessity is a defence to things like personal crimes (murder, assault etc)
BWS is considered a strand of provocation/necessity. Homosexual advances another.
The issue is that provocation/necessity is a complete defence.
Being a complete defence it means that if you are successful in making your argument you get to walk free.
Ordinarily provocation/necessity is based on a temporal intersection of events, which would exclude delayed actions.
BWS allowed for those delayed actions to be considered as part of an ongoing series of linked events to get around the temporal intersection requirement.

In the debate about provocation/necessity being a complete defence many have argued that it shouldn't be a complete defence, rather, it should become a mitigating factor in sentencing ONLY.

In Victoria provocation is not a complete defence. It is not even a partial defence.

 

[Present Not Past]

A history of domestic abuse should be taken into account during any trial. Maybe the sentence she received reflects this.
Still, the facts are she took a knife to her exs place and stabbed two people.

 

[Present Not Past]

This case is quite well known so you're probably familiar with the circumstances. Borce Ristevski, who killed his wife, covered it up, disposed of her body in circumstances of significant aggravation, showed zero remorse, had no history of being a victim of DV, mental illness, PTSD or drug abuse and cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money through a very lengthy investigation only got nine years on the top. He'll do about six.

That is a disgrace.