Friday, November 08, 2013

Just so wrong

I wasn't there so I did not hear the details of the court proceedings and what may be mitigating circumstances.

Isn't that what they say when the public expresses dissatisfaction at a sentence for criminal behaviour? You need to listen to the whole court case.

So Kieran Loveridge marauds around King Cross in Sydney, punching people at random. One of those he punched died as a result of his punch. The often less than impressive NSW police force for once stepped up to the crease and identified the assailant, gathered good evidence, presented a good case to the court and then what happened? The police did their job well and Loveridge was found guilty.

And then it all goes wrong when he is sentenced. Four years gaol, for multiple assaults, one resulting in a death.

I expect the Crown Prosecuter will appeal the sentence. It damn well ought to.  After all, Loveridge did kill someone, and it was hardly an accident. The sentence was clearly inadequate.

Please speak up and tell me where my thinking has gone wrong and why the assailant should not have been locked up for 25 years.



17 comments:

  1. I can't think of an answer Andrew but I do know It happens way too often.. The law is an ass with scary regularity oui!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grace, and authorities wonder why are so cynical and sceptical.

      Delete
  2. http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=168126

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Marcellous. Interesting to note that the the judge? referenced and was influenced by previous cases of a similar nature. On the face of it, they too seem inadequate. Is that the key to what seems to be an inadequate sentence?

      Delete
  3. I noticed one thing in my life there are two ways of justice, with or without money. Money always wins !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is often the case Gattina.

      Delete
    2. But not in this case surely Andrew: Loveridge didn't have senior counsel and they were instructed by the Aboriginal Legal Service.

      Delete
  4. The Judge gave Loveridge discounts for various reasons; (in my words) his contrition, his prospects for future good behaviour, his guilty plea, his difficult background and maybe other things too.

    What you didn't mention and I wonder whether the Judge gave any contrary consideration to is that Loveridge was on probation for an earlier assault offence when he committed this one.

    There is considerable anger about this sentencing in NSW and with the victim's parents being particularly articulate and vocal the matter is nowhere near over. Barry O'Farrell and his government can expect ongoing pressure to 'deal with' the Judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed Victor. I did not pick that up there, although I heard it on the news, I think.

      I pleased there is anger, which I was not aware of, and that the victim has articulate parents. I remember the incidents when they happened and they was a terrible and violent random assaults, resulting in one death.

      Delete
  5. If you are white, drunk, and while hooning along the Todd River in Alice Springs, accidentally bump an Aboriginal man causing him to smash his head on the ground and die, you can expect praise for not being motivated by racism.

    4 years? how long before he is out on parole?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes FC, I remember from the time. Better that they paint their speed humps in the Alice white rather than black.

      It was actually 7 years with a minimum of 4. He is making all the right noises, so he will be out in 4 or less.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't it 7 years and 2 months with a total effective sentence of 5 years and two months? For the manslaughter it was 6 years/4 years. He will be out in another 4 years; that is because he has already been inside referable to these offences for a year and two months (another two months seems to relate to prior offence for which he was on probation).

      The offence for which he was on probation was committed when he was 16 (almost 17) and the other offences were when he was 18 and a bit.

      He's been sentenced for manslaughter, not murder.
      The victim's mother said that no sentence would be enough. That's understandable.

      You could argue with the reasoning at a point of detail, maybe he should have got a longer sentence, but I don't agree with you that this is throw away the key territory. I can't see what putting him away for 25 years would achieve.

      Delete
    3. Marcellous, throwing away the key is an emotional reaction to something I do not understand. To gain pleasure from assaulting someone to the point where you cause their death is surely abhorrent to most people. Judges also need to become more aware of 'appearances'. When the media report, he could be out in four years, that is what people hear and focus on and they don't go into the detail.

      But regardless of anything, I can't get past the basics that he randomly assaulted four people and caused one person's death. Seven years in inadequate.

      Delete
  6. Lock him up and throw away the key.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. River, I try to be reasonable and charitable and take into account his difficult upbringing and the nice things people say about him, but yes, for mine, throw away the key.

      Delete
  7. It makes me angry and sad and frustrated all at once. His sentence is nothing in reality, for a life cut short :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fen, we always need to feel outraged at such a thing. When we don't worry about such things much, the battle is lost.

      Delete