Remove this Banner Ad

Murray Newman

  • Thread starter Thread starter West123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

EasternHills said:
Without know the specifics of the case it's hard to say. People found guilty of their first low-mid level GBH are often given suspended sentences because it's a waste of time locking them up.
Click to expand...

I'm no law expert so I can only comment on what has been reported on in the media. GBH is a pretty serious charge, it basically means the victim could have died if they did not receive medical assistance or could have suffered a permanent injury/issue as a result of the attack. It's a big step up from your common assault type charges and considering this is being heard in the district court, a period of imprisonment becomes more likely.

A guy I know got eight months for his first offence so suspended sentences for first time offenders aren't as common as you think. Like I've said previously GBH means the victim comes close to death without medical help so on the basis on that it is

Marlin01 said:
LJP, can anything be gleaned from the fact the hearing is scheduled for 3 days? That seems like a long hearing to me. Is that a standard length for a hearing of this type?
Click to expand...

They usually don't go for longer than a week. It also depends on evidence, prosecution case, witnesses etc.

QS said:
I think this is right.
Would need to have done some damage though! If you are alluding to the hitting the floor (a supposition) then any injury sustained in that would likely need to cause a bodily injury consistent with the definition of GBH.

Interesting to note though that now s 281 assault causing death, wipes out (pretty much) any hope of establishing the defence of accident if a guy hits the floor and dies. So much on the line now if someone elects to punch another when pissed.
Click to expand...

The victim was punched and sustained injuries so severe that they required surgery after the incident. So on the basis of that it seems a fair bit of damage was done.
 
I heard today that Newman was told by his lawyers that he has no chance of getting off the charges and that prison time is a big possibility.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Xponent said:
I heard today that Newman was told by his lawyers that he has no chance of getting off the charges and that prison time is a big possibility.
Click to expand...

Lawyers don't like to get hopes up in case they are wrong. Of course prision is a possibility, could get 10 years according to the act, don't think it'll happen though
 
Ljp86 said:
The victim was punched and sustained injuries so severe that they required surgery after the incident. So on the basis of that it seems a fair bit of damage was done.
Click to expand...
Would need to be consistent with s1 definition of GBH. Subtle differences in injuries can impact this, for example it has been held that loss of an earlobe (requiring surgery) was not GBH (cosmetic), where loss of hearing (not requiring surgery) was. Without knowing the extent and nature of the injury it is hard to predict.

You are right though, it is a serious charge but the sentence the provision provides for is for the most severe of cases, something a step short of a killing.

Will be interesting if they run self-defence (depending on the circumstances) ... unwilled act maybe.. :P
 
QS said:
Would need to be consistent with s1 definition of GBH. Subtle differences in injuries can impact this, for example it has been held that loss of an earlobe (requiring surgery) was not GBH (cosmetic), where loss of hearing (not requiring surgery) was. Without knowing the extent and nature of the injury it is hard to predict.

You are right though, it is a serious charge but the sentence the provision provides for is for the most severe of cases, something a step short of a killing.

Will be interesting if they run self-defence (depending on the circumstances) ... unwilled act maybe.. :p
Click to expand...

You mentioned provocation earlier - is that not available as a defence to a GBH charge?
 
the harry said:
Lawyers don't like to get hopes up in case they are wrong. Of course prision is a possibility, could get 10 years according to the act, don't think it'll happen though
Click to expand...
Put it this way, I've seen a few cases whereby accused persons are on their 7th or 8th charge of DUI (excess 0.15 BAC) and have not yet been put in prison.
 
FiveStrings said:
You mentioned provocation earlier - is that not available as a defence to a GBH charge?
Click to expand...
Correct, only an offence to which assault is an element; assault loses its character to the offence. So AOBH, Common assault, Unlawful assault causing death (what a silly charge).

I think it was Kaporonovski that confirmed provocation does not apply to GBH as assault is not an element, even if it may have been an assault that caused the GBH...still cannot get my head around that, but whatever, thats the law lol :P
 

Remove this Banner Ad

QS said:
I think it was Kaporonovski that confirmed provocation does not apply to GBH as assault is not an element, even if it may have been an assault that caused the GBH...still cannot get my head around that, but whatever, thats the law lol :p
Click to expand...

Kaporonovski was the glass in the hand - unwilled act case wasn't it?
 
the harry said:
Yeah but rookie draft too. That's early Dec. yeah? Trial is 3rd week of Dec. I think.
Click to expand...
I think its been brought forward.. might wanna check that though I just remember reading something about it.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

beatlesmith said:
The act being moving the hand and the event being the glass embedding in the face.
All flooding back to me!
Click to expand...
yeah! Murray v The Queen is better though, goes into more detail about the composite set of acts being the 'act' as to not permit a finding that the 'unwilled' discharge of a weapon was divorced from the other willed physical acts.

Anyway, unless the injury was really dire I think Murray should be ok. Will be interesting to see how it pans out and it's been quite useful to me as a bit of 'food for thought'.
 
Small Moves said:
I heard today that Newman was told by his lawyers that he has no chance of getting off the charges and that prison time is a big possibility.
Click to expand...


to be fair, didn't similar happen with that swimmer, d'arcy?


Judge Puckeridge said he did not accept D'Arcy's evidence that his punch, which left Cowley with severe facial injuries, was in self-defence.
But he said that D'Arcy's behaviour was "wild and impulsive", as a result of his "intoxication" on the night of the assault at Sydney's Loft Bar.

Cowley could have received as much as $750,000 but Judge Puckeridge has only awarded him $135,000 in aggravated damages, which "go towards the effect of the incident" on the defendant.

The retired Commonwealth Games swimmer had to have several titanium plates and screws inserted into his face as a result of the attack.

D'Arcy, 23, pleaded guilty to recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in 2009 and served a 14 month suspended jail sentence.
Click to expand...




i'm expecting similar here
 
QS said:
As it is now a hearing, I have a feeling no lesser charge was proffered. That would have been done earlier I think.
They must have some solid evidence, but if the evidence does not give rise to a finding of GBH but one of AOBH the judge may direct the jury accordingly (at least this is my understanding).
Click to expand...
I have heard, reliably, that there were some shenanigans with the charge originally. Newman's lawyer tried to get a copper to down grade the charge. The prosecutor found out and made a complaint and there was then an internal investigation.

Maybe that is why there is no wriggle room with the charge?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom