Coward Punch - Murder or Manslaughter?

[Caesar]

the problem with that is a punch to the head is not one, very specific kind of crime. there's such a broad spectrum of ways a fatal punch can be thrown, compared to the gang rape situation where the spectrum, whilst still in existence, is much narrower.

Not really. This isn't about punches to the head. It's about king hits. The defining element of a king hit is attacking someone without warning, generally from behind.

You can easily frame an offence that specifically targets king hits by creating a new aggrevated category for (say) attacking someone unawares. IMO that would be bad law, but nonetheless it could be done. I don't know if that will be the path that the government goes down, but I imagine there will be some sort of legislative change to target these sorts of offences.

 

[The Passenger]

Not really. This isn't about punches to the head. It's about king hits. The defining element of a king hit is attacking someone without warning from behind.

What if you punch them from in front but they weren't expecting things to escalate into a "punch on" type situation?

We don't know the full details of the New Years Eve situation but from the little bits I read it seemed like everyone was facing each other. The kid who died and his brother jumped in to defend someone else, so they were definitely aware of the guys presence. I don't think they've really gone into what happened after that, but may be wrong.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Not really. This isn't about punches to the head. It's about king hits. The defining element of a king hit is attacking someone without warning from behind.

You can easily create an offence that specifically targets king hits by creating a new aggrevated category for (say) attacking someone unawares. I don't know if that will be the path that the government goes down, but I imagine there will be some sort of legislative change to target these sorts of offences.

i don't necessarily agree, and would define a king hit to be a general unexpected punch to the head, from behind or otherwise.

given these occur generally when both the victim and the perpetrator are under the influence of alcohol, and with diminished reflexes etc, the first punch in the majority of these incidents whether they are pure king hits or the first punch in what subsequently becomes an average 'fight' could be deemed a king hit.

to me such a law would be pretty much impossible to enforce, nevermind completely unfair unless there was a huge sentencing range which would open another can of worms in itself.

this guy has a record and will likely receive a lengthy jail sentence which he will fully deserve. whilst tragic i don't necessarily think the law needs changing.

 

[Caesar]

What if you punch them from in front but they weren't expecting things to escalate into a "punch on" type situation?

No idea. I'm not drafting the legislation.

I just think that there will be some form of law change that will target these sort of assaults by pulling out the 'unprovoked' element, putting it into a new statutory category and applying new hefty minimums to sentencing. Because that's the bit that's getting everybody up in arms. Not that people are being punched in the head - but that people are getting punched in the head for pretty much no reason.

I mean, I could be wrong. But I never bet against a government getting tough on law and order.

 

[The Passenger]

No idea. I'm not drafting the legislation.

I just think that there will be some form of law change that will target these sort of assaults by pulling out the 'unprovoked' element, putting it into a new statutory category and applying new hefty minimums to sentencing. Because that's the bit that's getting everybody up in arms. Not that people are being punched in the head - but that people are getting punched in the head for pretty much no reason.

I mean, I could be wrong. But I never bet against a government getting tough on law and order.

FWIW I don't think you're wrong. You only have to speak to parents - particularly mums - of people somewhere around our age bracket and you can see the effect that it's having. According to my mum society is out of control at the moment, even though this time last year there was no drama's.

Any legislation framed could become very vague - Judging how aware a person was to receive a hit is going to be one hell of a task. Particularly when most of the testimonies are gonna came from people who were pissed.

 

[Caesar]

i don't necessarily agree, and would define a king hit to be a general unexpected punch to the head, from behind or otherwise.

given these occur generally when both the victim and the perpetrator are under the influence of alcohol, and with diminished reflexes etc, the first punch in the majority of these incidents whether they are pure king hits or the first punch in what subsequently becomes an average 'fight' could be deemed a king hit.

to me such a law would be pretty much impossible to enforce, nevermind completely unfair unless there was a huge sentencing range which would open another can of worms in itself.

this guy has a record and will likely receive a lengthy jail sentence which he will fully deserve. whilst tragic i don't necessarily think the law needs changing.

I don't think the law needs changing, but I think it will be changed.

The randomness is the reason everyone is so upset. People are scared because their kids can go out and do all the right things, be nice to everybody, never get in anyone's face, and still wind up in hospital because some drunk with an imaginary grievance took a swing at them.

I can't see any reason why it would be impossible to enforce. An offence being unprovoked is already taken into account by judges as an aggrevating circumstance when sentencing assaults. It is not that difficult to pull that element out of the sentencing process and create a separate statutory offence with a mandated minimum. I don't think this sort of lawmaking (doing an end-run around judicial sentencing discretion) is a good idea, and I agree it often creates unfair outcomes, but it is something that parliaments do regularly.

 

[checkraiseulite]

FWIW I don't think you're wrong. You only have to speak to parents - particularly mums - of people somewhere around our age bracket and you can see the effect that it's having. According to my mum society is out of control at the moment, even though this time last year there was no drama's.

you can thank the media for this. middle-aged women are lapping this shit up, straight out of anchorman 2.

as i've said countless times before, mix young men, women and alcohol and there's going to be a small degree of people who can't control themselves and end up getting into trouble. an even smaller number of these people are going to end up killing or maiming some unlucky kid. doesn't matter if it's 2014, 2001, 1996, 1980 or 1880, same shits been happening.

only difference is in the last ten years or so it's being reported on by the media.

 

[checkraiseulite]

The randomness is the reason everyone is so upset. People are scared because their kids can go out and do all the right things, be nice to everybody, never get in anyone's face, and still wind up in hospital because some drunk with an imaginary grievance took a swing at them.

how many assaults are provoked? and what constitutes 'provocation'?

you'd end up a landslide of assaults being prosecuted under this new offence imo.

 

[Caesar]

how many assaults are provoked? and what constitutes 'provocation'?

you'd end up a landslide of assaults being prosecuted under this new offence imo.

I don't think so. Like I said, the case law behind what constitutes an unprovoked assault is pretty well established because it's already a part of the sentencing process. You would just transfer over the existing precedents defining an unprovoked assault to determine the scope of the new offence.

EDIT: http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/assault_wounding_offences.html#p50-140

Unprovoked offence

The fact that an offence is unprovoked and unjustified is a matter to be taken into account when assessing its objective seriousness: R v Matzick [2007] NSWCCA 92 at [23]; R v Reid (2005) 155 A Crim R 428 at [25]; R v Mackey [2006] NSWCCA 254 at [14] (all s 33 cases).

 

[checkraiseulite]

I understand that. But fundamentally most assaults would be unprovoked (at least in a traditional sense) (and certainly unjustified).

Then there's going to be another range of aggravating/mitigating factors for the new offence and you're going to end up in the exact same situation we're in now.

Anyway, I don't envy whoever's responsible for dealing with this problem because I can't really see it going away or any suitable way to address it to the public's satisfaction.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

Everything I know about civil engineering comes from watching bob the builder episodes, but if someone ever posts a thread on here titled Bridge design in earthquake prone areas- Suspension bridges or Truss bridges?' I am bloody well putting in my two cents.

 

[DrKrieger]

I understand that. But fundamentally most assaults would be unprovoked (at least in a traditional sense) (and certainly unjustified).

Then there's going to be another range of aggravating/mitigating factors for the new offence and you're going to end up in the exact same situation we're in now.

Anyway, I don't envy whoever's responsible for dealing with this problem because I can't really see it going away or any suitable way to address it to the public's satisfaction.

I hope they don't do anything silly to try and appease the public.

At the end of the day, everything about a king hit is already illegal, whether it is assault/GBH/manslaughter. Through the range of charges judges have a wide range of possible sentences available should the accused be found guilty, and in practice the only difference between a manslaughter conviction and one for murder is the name of the offence. (well, that and public perception, but the sentencing possibilities are more or less the same)

I'm not a fan of the way the QLD government seems to be attempting to override the judiciary with things like mandatory sentencing (With the VLAD laws etc), and I'd hate to see it become common across the country.

I think realistically the situation is that the general public are unhappy with the seemingly weak sentences being handed down for king hit offences, but this shouldn't require a change to the law, especially since the law currently seems to be getting convictions anyway.

 

[clogged]

you can thank the media for this. middle-aged women are lapping this shit up, straight out of anchorman 2.

as i've said countless times before, mix young men, women and alcohol and there's going to be a small degree of people who can't control themselves and end up getting into trouble. an even smaller number of these people are going to end up killing or maiming some unlucky kid. doesn't matter if it's 2014, 2001, 1996, 1980 or 1880, same shits been happening.

only difference is in the last ten years or so it's being reported on by the media.

Not so. Drunken violence has fallen quite dramatically over the past decade in Sydney, however this kind of attack remains and is even increasing. In my opinion it is entirely related to the moronic "do you even lift" culture.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Not so. Drunken violence has fallen quite dramatically over the past decade in Sydney, however this kind of attack remains and is even increasing. In my opinion it is entirely related to the moronic "do you even lift" culture.

Sounds logical.

 

[clogged]

Sounds logical.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-crime-growing-drug-link-to-violent-assaults-20140109-30kkt.html

 

[Caesar]

On the broader topic, I doubt tougher criminal penalties will have much impact on this kind of violence. I think the only way you really get traction is to make businesses more liable in such cases for failing to provide a safe venue. But then, I doubt anybody wants things to get to the stage where bouncers are turfing anybody who looks a bit tipsy for fear that they might take a swing at someone.

At the end of the day it's hard to think of a satisfactory solution. People get unpredictable and do dumb stuff when drunk. If you are going to get drunk around 100+ drunk strangers, there is always going to be a risk.

 

[clogged]

Bring back Abe Saffron.

 

[checkraiseulite]

 

[checkraiseulite]

At the end of the day it's hard to think of a satisfactory solution. People get unpredictable and do dumb stuff when drunk. If you are going to get drunk around 100+ drunk strangers, there is always going to be a risk.

Exactly that's why i mentioned the shark thread.

The point about making the venues liable is an interesting one. I can't say I have seen many king hits in my life, but a large % of punches to the head of an unsuspecting victim i have seen have come from security personnel at or outside licensed venues.

 

[Damon_3388]

I think realistically the situation is that the general public are unhappy with the seemingly weak sentences being handed down for king hit offences, but this shouldn't require a change to the law, especially since the law currently seems to be getting convictions anyway.

I think there's a large problem in this country with sentencing in general. Heat needs to be put on judges more than anyone else.

 

[j0rdy1]

I think there's a large problem in this country with sentencing in general. Heat needs to be put on judges more than anyone else.

I don't even think its that. I myself got king hit along with a few other people a few months back over some beef between a mate of a mate of mine and some guy he knew. I didn't remember anything due to being heavily intoxicated. But the other guys told the cops exactly who attacked us, and nothing came out of it the main culprit has already been charged with assault on the same guy. Seemed because no one was really hurt other then a blood nose they didn't care. Happened in the middle of a night club, and we all got dragged out by bouncers. But nothing happened. The dickhead is still walking around today. Lucky and unlucky at the same time that I got tough head I guess.

Seems if no one is badly hurt they don't care even though they meant to cause serious damage.

That being said I totally agree that sentencing in Australia is pretty lenient guess they don't want to pay for caring for scum to sit in jail.

 

[Niximus]

Whatever the charge the sentence will be insufficient IMO.

If you make a choice to start a fight with someone, rob someone or otherwise initiate violence with someone innocently going about their business and your actions cause them to lose their life then you have forfeited your right to freedom, permanently.

 

[skilts]

It seems to me that a lot of this type of crime has a common element - contact by the head on a concrete footpath, after being king hit. Maybe if footpaths were made of that rubberised material with which they pave playgrounds, the results would not be so deadly.

Seriously though, asking for a murder conviction for this crime, especially where a secondary impact occurs, may be an unrealistic expectation. It seems difficult, though not impossible, to prove that the assailant should have foreseen that his victim would die due to impact with the concrete. Dunno really. I suppose that's why we have juries, which can decide each case on an individual basis.

 

[skilts]

A really good reason NOT to make enemies among your colleagues when you work in the media.

 

[Catfish Alley]

I think it's extremely foreseeable that hitting somebody could result in them falling and hitting there head.