One-Punch Legislation in Western Australia - Assignment Example

One-Punch Legislation In Australia Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation One-Punch Legislation In Australia One-Punch Legislation In Western Australia According to Perth Now (2008), Western Australia introduced the nation’s first ever “one punch laws”, which is aimed at impacting tough sentences for any level of assaults that results to death. This law was prompted by a given number of cases whereby the accused got acquitted with manslaughter charges since it could not be ascertained that the deaths were reasonably foreseeable at the time when the assault happened. The Conversation (2013) ascertains that one-punch laws, which got enacted in Western Australia in 2008 and the Northern Territory in 2012, was prompted by numerous media coverage on tragic deaths of youths in circumstances that was very similar to the killings of Thomas Kelly. This law provides that in case an individual assaults another resulting to death, the indicted is guilty of the offence of unlawful assaulting resulting from the killings. The charged is prone to imprisonment of 10 years in Western Australia jurisdiction. In consequence, the offence emanating from the assault is regarded as filling a gap; a controversial gap that still exists in some parts of the country whereby manslaughter is regarded in a manner that it is not applicable in one-punch killing situations due to the level of activities of the defence of accident. It is crucial to note that the law defines accident as being an outcome that was unintentional in nature by the charged person and that it is not reasonably anticipated by any ordinary human being. Section 281 of the Criminal Code Act 1913(WA) ascertains that unlawful assaults resulting to death occurs when an individual illegally assaults another individual, as a result, leading to death due to either direct or indirect results of the assault; this person is found guilty of a crime and is liable for imprisonment for 10 years (O’Farrell, 2014). Secondly, it occurs whenever the individual is perceived to be criminally accountable under subsection (1) even in case where the individual fails to foresee the death of the other human being and also, regardless of whether the killing was not reasonably anticipated. One-Punch Legislation in NSW and Queesnland In New South Wales, under the legislation, anyone accused is liable for imprisonment for a period of 25 years maximum as well as 8-year mandatory sentencing in case the accused is found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The assault causing death offence falls under The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014(NSW). The Act amends Crime Act 1900(NSW) in order to include a totally new offence, which can be accused in s25A and 25B of the Act (Institute of Australia, 2014). The offence is perceived to take place whenever it is ascertained that an individual accused of the offence assaults another person by intentionally striking another being with his/her body parts or an object and as a result causes death. It is also noted that the offence of this assault should not be authorised or excused by any give form of law (Institute of Australia, 2014). A jail term of 20 years maximum is allowed in case it is found that the accused is guilty but not under the influence of alcohol. In Queensland, one-punch laws are provides as an extension of the amendment done on Safe Night Out Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 within the Amendment Of Criminal Code s302A, which defines unlawful striking causing death in different terms. It provides that the unlawful striking causing death happens whenever an individual unlawfully strikes another human being on either the head or neck thus, resulting their death. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (Ashworth, 2009). Unlike in other jurisdiction, the unlawful striking thus causing death in Queensland does not make a person guilty in case the hitting of the other individual was conducted as a way of socially acceptable functionality or activity or whenever it is found out that it was indeed reasonable within that particular moment (Safe Night Out Legislation Amendment Bill 2014) Reasons for The Introduction of One-Punch Law The formulation and implementation was mainly prompted by numerous cases of whereby a good number of accusers were acquitted of manslaughter since it could not be proven, in most of the Australian courts, that the resultant killings were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the assault. A perfect case scenario that led to the introduction of the law was largely due to the extensive media coverage provided for the Sydney teenager: Thomas Kelly (Pearlman, 2014). Kelly was stricken and killed by the accused: Kieran Loveridge in an irrational act of alcohol-fuelled violence (The Conversation, 2014). When the accused pleaded guilty to acts of manslaughter, people had exorbitant expectations that he would be subjected to heft prison term. However, he was only sentenced to a four-year minimum jail term resulting in intense public outcry. Western Australia Attorney-General Jim McGinty perceived the need to pursue the gap in law as way of assuring aggrieved families of fair justice. Thus, he sought to introduce a new legislation that would make accused people responsible for offence and serve a prison term for a period not less than 10 years (Perth Now, 2014). Criticism of One-Punch Legislation There have a substantial number of criticisms regarding the introduction and implementation of one-punch law in Australia. These criticisms are discussed as follows; First, it is argued that the Australian government took little or no time to announce or rather introduce the 16-point plan without having consulted other expert bodies like the NSW Law Reform Commission (Brown, 2013). In fact, it is established that the government enacted mandatory legislation due to intense media coverage and public outcry as opposed to having sought expert opinion. The penal code as well as the “law and order” response framework was provided by the government in order to calm the concerns of the bereaved families and community at large. Such media houses as The Telegraph and The Sydney Morning Herald contributed a lot in the haste introduction of the law (Chalmers & Leverick, 2008). These two media houses engaged in intensive media campaigns calling for stringent actions on perpetrators of the assaults; prompting the government to respond without expertise. In fact, may critiques argue that media always distorts the prevailing facts of case and also, fails to avail relevant information to the public in a balanced manner hence promoting punitive ideas and opinions. Notwithstanding, the bereaved families also played a great role to influence the government into making haste legislative decision (Quilter & McNamara, 2013). Kelly’s father called for the NSW government to adopt distinctive solutions like the Newcastle Solution and a ban on political donations directed towards alcohol and gambling related activities. Notably, the political class also determined the course of action for the government (Brown, 2013). For instance, the PM Tony Abbott and Governor-General condemned the acts of violence and called for immediate actions to be taken against the perpetrations. Secondly, critiques argue that the immediate adoption of the law depicts an ill-considered policy priority transfer from the normal Code jurisdictions to common law states without any proper form of translation (Lacey, 2009). For this case, a specific policy that has been formulated to address an existing gap within the code-based authority being integrated to a different scenario of the overall common law. In essence, it is ascertained that there was neither an existing gap on statute books in the government or operational level gap. This is because previous manslaughter convictions were always accomplished with the present laws. Thirdly, criticism also arose in regards to the failure of the Australian government to provide principled deliberations if “assaults casing death” offences were similar to fatality crimes (Lacey, 2009). This misplacement of the law is perceived to cause chaos and confusion especially in the course of convicting criminal crimes. Furthermore, it enhances a lack of coherence within the criminal law and thus, weakens principles of fair labelling, which acts as an important communication role of the entire criminal law. Fourth, critiques have continued to argue that the introduction of the legislation has led to lack of clarity and operational constraints, which involves definition of the term intoxication (Lacey, 2009). It is ironical that the legislation considers a sober individual who executed assault causing death to be more moral and stable than an intoxicated person hence being awarded a slightly less sentence. Conclusion and Recommendation The discussion above ascertains that one-punch law was formulated and introduced in the different parts of Australia to aid with convictions pertaining to “assault causing death” offences. The legislation attracts different judgements in different jurisdiction. It can be fairly argued it come into existence through a haste decision by the Government in order to tackle and contain public outcries that resulted from consistent manslaughter of persons by intoxicated individuals. My opinion is that the law though had been introduced to pursue a positive initial objective; it was enacted without lack of expert opinion and involvement. Thus, i think it should be amended in order to eliminate the existing doubts on possible misjudgements in the future. The different governments should sit down with different stakeholders to ascertain the efficiency of the legislation. References Ashworth, A. (2009). Principles of Criminal Law, 6th edn. London: Oxford University Press. Brown, D. (2013). Criminalisation and Normative Theory. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 25(2), 605‐625. Chalmers, J & Leverick, F. (2008). Fair labelling in Criminal Law. The Modern Law Review, 71(2), 217‐246. Institute of Australia. (2014). Mandatory Sentencing in NSW. Retrieved March 9, 2015 from http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Booklet_Rule-of-Law-Institute_Mandatory_Sentencing1.pdf Lacey, N. (2009). Historicising criminalization: Conceptual and empirical issues. Modern Law Review 72, 936. O’Farrell, B (2014) (NSW Premier) Second Reading Speech, Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Bill 2014 and the Liquor Amendment Bill 2014, Hansard, Legislative Assembly NSW Parliament, 30 January. Perth Now. (2014). WA to introduce “one punch” assault law. Retrieved on March 9.2015 from http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa-gets-new-one-punch-law/story-e6frg12c-1111115798404 Pearlman, J. (2014). Australia leading the way in crackdown on one-punch killers. The Telegraph, Retrieved on March 9, 2015 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10670485/Australia-leading-the-way-in-crackdown-on-one-punch-killers.html Quilter, J & McNamara, L (2013).Time to define ‘the cornerstone of public order legislation’: The elements of offensive conduct/language under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) UNSWLJ 36(2): 534‐562 Safe Night Out Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. (2014). Amendment Of Criminal Code. Retrieved on March 9, 2015 from https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/54PDF/2014/SafeNightOutLAB14.pdf The Conversation. (2014). The Thomas Kelly case: Why a one-punch law is not the answer. Retrieved on March 9, 2015 from http://theconversation.com/the-thomas-kelly-case-why-a-one-punch-law-is-not-the-answer-20106 Read More