Murder of Kelly by Loveridge - Case Study Example

BUSINESS LAW REPORT Student’s Name Course Professor’s Name University City (State) Date Business Law Report The judges and lawyers continuously use previous facts from other managerial law analysis to advice on the legal issues facing business at that time. The judicial decisions on similar cases legally apply as the legal rules to solve any organizational dispute. The application and analysis of the past court rulings give the legal rights and obligations expected during any business dilemma. Apparently, the courts and lawyers identify one particular case and henceforth look for a family of similar cases from the precedents. The judicial bodies will always want to use this one instance, as the base of all the other facts-sensitive analysis situations from time to time. Nevertheless, the business platforms are changing due to education and numerous researchers. Therefore, a business problem is critically analyzed when it involves organizational or marketing, chances, especially (Holloway 2015, p. 140). For instance, the Thomas Kelly case murder, which was solved through one punch law (Quilter et al. 2015, p. 10). As the judiciary think that the one punch law was the solution to the murder of Thomas Kelly, the majority of the people including his family feels that there was no justice. Quilter et al. (2015, p. 10) noted that Thomas Kelly was 18-years-old when he was tragically killed by Kieran Loveridge along Kings Cross in a random, senseless act facilitated by alcohol in 2012. Kelly was walking along the streets with his friends when the intoxicated, aggressive Loveridge hit him on the head using king hit. Kelly fell down on the pavement which caused massive brain destruction, which in turn, caused his death after two days. Interestingly, Loveridge was sentenced to seven years and two months in jail despite having four other major assaults of violence and admitting to being guilty to that manslaughter in September 2012. Specifically, six years were for murder with four years non-parole period (NPP), and the one and two months for the other assaults. The public, state and family caused an immediate uproar claiming that the punishment accorded to Loveridge was less depending on the kind of crimes he conducted. As a result, on the same day, the Attorney-General of the New South Wales the, Greg Smith SC MP, asked the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) through the media to allow an appeal against the jail sentence. Nevertheless, four days Greg publicized about a proposed one punch law to the State Parliament (Quilter 2014, p.10). Notably, the business theories show the organizational platforms that require the application of principles and rules to come up with right solutions. Apparently, a managerial analysis about any particular situation enables the legal department to dig up all the actual evidence about other similar cases before making the end decision. This technique uses analytical methods to identify a situation that initiates the decision-making. Firstly, the business and the courts have to find a way to explain the legal issues they are facing at that particular time (Holloway 2015, p. 144). For instance, in this case, it is the murder of Kelly by Loveridge. Thus, the jury must all related information about before even determining the kind of case. Consequently, the court searched for a family of cases that could aid them in making the decision of how to handle Loveridge. Understanding and solving any particular legal issues requires that the jury first does a legal analysis that concurs with the present issue. The questions, initiate a process for the board to make the decision on the matter at hand. For instance, when Loveridge pleaded guilty to the murder of Kelly people expected that he could receive a lengthy jail term, however, he was sentenced to four NPP (Quilter 2014, p.26). The one punch law used in Kelly’s murder case was first used in Australian in August 2007 in the Queensland Parliament. At that time it was just a private member’s bill Mr. Mark McArdele MP. Which later attracted a lot of publicity for the three allegations of punch deaths, of which two were considered acquittals (R v Moody and R v Little), thus leading to a plea of manslaughter. Mr. McArdele established the Bill referring to Moody and Little calling for the community concern about the one punch situation. The Bill recommended maximum seven jail terms for defendants in such cases. However, the state government rejected that rule terming it as unlawful (Quilter et al. 2015, p. 10). The Attorney-General said that the bill was opposed because it has no values of the types of crimes committed, it could cause unintended effects on the defenses, and premature to create a new offense without reviewing the other forms of homicide cases. Previously, on May 2007 the government had requested the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General (DJAG) to evaluate all the murder trials and report on the nature and the pattern of occurrence on the defenses of provocation and accident. The DJAG reviewed trials from July 2002 to 2007 March and finalized the report in October 2007. Correspondingly, the public was asked to report about their concern about defenses associated with accidents and provocation. Also, in 2008, the Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) assessed the same defenses and found similar results to those of public views and DJAG (Quilter 2014, p.20). Therefore, in 2008, QLRC composed the final report that particularly advised against creating the one punch law. Nevertheless, the one punch laws were later introduced in Western Australia in 2008 and consequently in the northern territory in 2012. On both occasional, the actions got intense coverage by the media due to tragic kills of young men in similar ways such as that of Thomas. Interestingly, all involved a punch in the head, resulting in falling and crash on hard parts causing massive brain distractions that leave the victim unconscious forever. In Western Australia, there are records of three such incidents and the death of Brett Meredith in Northern Territory. However, in the case of Brett, Michael Martyn was convicted of manslaughter for that one punch death in a Katherine nightclub in November 2011 (Liquor Law Review 2016). “One punch laws provide that where a person assaults another, and the person dies either as a direct or indirect result of the attack, the person is guilty of the offense of unlawful assault causing death” (Quilter 2014, p.19). In Western Australia a person is imprisoned for maximum 10 years while in the Northern Territory is 16 years. Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) Section 281 states a person is guilty and liable to ten years imprisonment for unlawful attacking an individual who dies, directly or indirectly due to that assault. Also, the person is responsible criminally, in subsection (1) whether cannot foresee or intend to kill their victim. The Bill was solely based on punch situations and not other areas. The distinguishing feature of these cases is the lack of objective or subjective fault in the death of the victim since the accident excuse is excluded. First, the fact that death was as a result of the attack is sufficient evidence. Surprisingly, the one punch laws are similar to battery manslaughter legislation that was previously banned by the High Courts in the past (Quilter et al. 2015, p.20).Correspondingly, Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Act 2008 (WA) made changes to the homicide law in Western Australia as recommended by the Western Australian Law Reform Commission (WALRC). WALRC recommended that the S 294 of the killer code about any grievous harm that is used as an alternative manslaughter with adequate foreseeable test (Quilter 2014, p.19). On the other hand, in the Northern Territory, the one punch law was initiated as the Criminal Code Amendment (Violent Act Causing Death) Act 2012 (NT) under violent acts other than simple assaults. The Act was introduced as S. 161A of violent acts that led to death. Under this law, a person is guilty of a violent crime if the individual involves in any aggressive act towards another person and if they cause the death of that individual. The maximum penalty for this offense is 16 years. However, the defendant is criminally responsible for that crime if they intended to do it. Contrarily, the defendant is not held accountable criminally when the action took place in a social context, for the benefit of the other person, and for the purpose of the a reasonable social activity (Quilter et al. 2015, p.19). The violent crimes are associated with force application towards another person with or without an offensive weapon. Examples of these offenses are a punch, kick, strike, hit and blow. The law has been effective since 21 December 2012 but has never been used. Apparently, it was an election promise from the Country Liberal Party which won (Quilter 2014, p.20). Despite the much media coverage about these one punch laws, there is no particular rule from the Law Reform Commission of Australia that allows the introduction of these one punch laws. Quilter et al. (2015, p.20) noted that therefore, the introduction of these codes in the Northern Territory and Western Australia was seen as the necessity to cover a gap that exists in the manslaughter definition off punch deaths. The law jurisdictions provide an accident of defense as any action that was not intended by the offender and cannot be foreseen by any other person. Gibb J stated that an unexpected event occurred when the consequence of the act was not intended or expected by the perpetrator or any other person in the Kaporonowski v The Queen. Alternatively, a murder without accident as the defence has an intent to kill that person in it. To declare any action as an accident in case, the defendant must convince the judge beyond doubt that they had no intention of killing that person and neither they nor another person had foreseen that event. As a result, there is need for one punch law in Australia about manslaughter, not because it is a light way but because the individual might not be willing to kill the people they do. Apparently, there are achievements of manslaughter convictions on the one punch in the New South Wales. Notably, there are many cases of such incidences recorded over time. Hulme J notes that cases of people falling and sustaining serious unintended head injuries are very common although the defendants must support their claim with unique information and circumstances in the R v Castle. As a result the New South Wales Public Defence Office came up with a schedule of the dangerous acts from 1998 to 2013. The crimes are categorized as stabbing, shooting, assault, domestic assault, drowning, arson, motor vehicle, and others (Quilter 2014, p.28). Also, they created a separate category of one punch murders that incorporated all other forms of manslaughters. Surprisingly, one punch deaths comprise 8%, a lower percentage of homicides compared to the other types, domestic taking the highest level of 35% (Quilter 2014, p 29). The one punch murders has the following features; mostly male victims and offenders, almost all occur to strangers, average age is 26 years, majority below 25 years but above eighteen years. There are rare cases of minors, destroyed youth, excessive consumption of alcohol, and majority of them in the public streets. Furthermore, almost all the offenders plead guilty to the offense, and each case death is random, thereby causing remorse in majority of the cases. In all cases the judges call for rehabilitation to reduce the chances of re-offending. Moreover, most of the one punch manslaughters have the factors in Section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and some of the offenders have previous records of similar convictions. (Quilter 2014, p.32) noted that the average sentence for this crime is five years and three months with an NPP of three years and three months. The range of the sentences given the culprits is three to seven years for the cases they considered in their research. In contrast, people who conduct murder are condemned to three to twenty years. Explicitly, there is a substantial difference between the punishment given to manslaughters and the one punch murderers. The one punch murders punishments are way below that of manslaughter as whole. Clearly, it is not the gap in the criminal law that matters, but the length of sentence for murder and the alleged one-punch killing situations. There is no enough reason to introduce a bill with a lower maximum for a crime similar to manslaughter. Most importantly, the juries should note that a tension must be created in pursuit of evaluating the seriousness of such cases and the need to account for them fully. In conclusion, the death of young Thomas Kelly, promptly require something to be done and it is quite understandable when the government, the public, and his family demands for it. Although there was evidence of similar cases in the past, the severity of the case must cause an outburst from the family due to the pain of the loss of one of their loved one. Also, since there is the prevalence of these crimes, the government and the public must advocate for harsher punishment in the pursuit of ending them. The Australian government, therefore, should come up with a precise and clear law that targets the one punch, manslaughter without favoring in whatsoever manner. As a much as these cases are not intended, the punishments given should at least satisfy the people involved. Manslaughter resulting in the death, whether intended or not. Alternatively, since all these crimes are conducted under the influence of alcohol, the government should set the maximum levels of intoxication, beyond which people should be denied the plea for one punch manslaughter. References Holloway, J.E., 2015. Concept-Sensitive Managerial Analysis with Law: Applying a Business Concept to a Legal Rule to Identify the Domain of Business Situations, A. Wm. & Mary Bus. L. Rev., 6, p.137. Liquor Law Review. (2016). Home. [online] Available at: http://www.liquorlawreview.justice.nsw.gov.au [Accessed 10 Oct. 2016]. Quilter, J., 2013. The Thomas Kelly case: why a ‘one-punch law’is not the answer. Quilter, J., McNamara, L.J., Seear, K. and Room, R., 2015. Alcohol and drug fuelled violence-mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing. Read More