Keiran Loveridge (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

you dense fucker!!!

R v Fenton (1975) 61 Crim App R 261.

the section you are referring to is merely reciting that!

R v Fenton is authority for whether evidence of intoxication can be adduced to establish diminished responsibility, a partial defence which would reduce a finding of murder to manslaughter, not for establishing the required mens rea for murder. the purpose of s 428 E is to ensure that anyone acquitted of murder on the grounds that the required mens rea cannot be established due to evidence of intoxication may still be liable for manslaughter. the judicial commission of new south wales agrees with me. just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[funkshen]

loveridge is the assange of our times.

 

[enoilgam]

Cool it with the personal attacks people - it's debate school 101.

 

[wannaspoon]

R v Sheehan and Moore (1975) 2 All ER 960

"A drunken intent is, nevertheless, an intent"

 

[funkshen]

Cool it with the personal attacks people - it's debate school 101.

sorry sir

R v Sheehan and Moore (1975) 2 All ER 960

hey maybe if we were in england that would be relevant

 

[wannaspoon]

trying to find a better case, there is a High court on from Australia that pretty much recites that... but can't be bothered...

 

[nerdasdasd]

R v Fenton is authority for whether evidence of intoxication can be adduced to establish diminished responsibility, a partial defence which would reduce a finding of murder to manslaughter, not for establishing the required mens rea for murder. the purpose of s 428 E is to ensure that anyone acquitted of murder on the grounds that the required mens rea cannot be established due to evidence of intoxication may still be liable for manslaughter. the judicial commission of new south wales agrees with me. just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

+1.

 

[Kiraken]

you dense fucker!!!

R v Fenton (1975) 61 Crim App R 261.



the section you are referring to is merely reciting that!

A person who is on probation, beating on five guys in one night; really, really good prospects for rehabilitation...

lock him on the basis that he is a danger to society...

with reference to that section of the crimes act its also important to note

"3.6 It is a precondition to the application of the defence that the prosecution has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is otherwise liable for murder. That is, the prosecution must prove that the accused caused the death of another human being, and that he or she had the requisite mental state for murder at the time of the killing."

I'm not a legal student, but from my interpretation that means that as a precondition that person must have wanted to *kill* the person when intoxicated to be liable for murder. There is no way of proving that he actually set out to kill him when hitting him, particularly important to consider cos it was a single punch and most of the damage was caused by his head hitting the pavement. Not saying this means he is innocent, merely that it's not intent for murder

 

[wannaspoon]

Malice can be inferred by recklessness too...

meaning you can prove the fault element on the basis of the probable consequence of the actions in question...

and I was not trying to prove the fault element with diminished responsibility... I was merely saying why the hell was he only charged with manslaughter... when you can gun for reckless murder

I'm saying he could not argue diminished responsibility through intoxication... why wouldn't they charge him with reckless murder...

 

[funkshen]

trying to find a better case, there is a High court on from Australia that pretty much recites that... but can't be bothered...

wrong.

with reference to that section of the crimes act its also important to note

"3.6 It is a precondition to the application of the defence that the prosecution has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is otherwise liable for murder. That is, the prosecution must prove that the accused caused the death of another human being, and that he or she had the requisite mental state for murder at the time of the killing."

I'm not a legal student, but from my interpretation that means that as a precondition that person must have wanted to *kill* the person when intoxicated to be liable for murder. There is no way of proving that he actually set out to kill him when hitting him, particularly important to consider cos it was a single punch and most of the damage was caused by his head hitting the pavement. Not saying this means he is innocent, merely that it's not intent for murder

yes, the mens rea (mental fault element) for murder is intent to kill or reckless indifference to human life, which means recklessness as to the probability of causing death (where probability means 'likely'; almost certain; so on and so forth). intent would be impossible to establish, and reckless indifference would be very difficult. the DPP would have taken these considerations into account during plea negotiations.

Malice can be inferred by recklessness too...

meaning you can prove the fault element on the basis of the probable consequence of the actions in question...

and I was not trying to prove the fault element with diminished responsibility... I was merely saying why the hell was he only charged with manslaughter... when you can gun for reckless murder

I'm saying he could not argue diminished responsibility through intoxication... why wouldn't they charge him with reckless murder...

no. stop trying. you're out of your depth.

 

[wannaspoon]

ok... you win...

It is very hard to prove...

its clearly manifestly dangerous... assaulting four other people on the same night, it was bound to end with somebody having a really, really bad day; which it did... I'm not saying I'm right... I'm just saying...

 

[funkshen]

Keiran Loveridge fought for our freedoms.

 

[wannaspoon]

Keiran Loveridge fought for our freedoms.

 

[hayleyemma96]

Ok guys while I agree that the sentence was far too lenient, there are justifications for the decision (some bad and some good).
The DPP agreed to downgrade the charge because there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that the offender had intended to kill. No intent to kill = not guilty of murder. However, they could prove that he intended to injure Thomas Kelly so they could prove manslaughter. They would rather get 4 years than nothing at all.
Also, the judge couldn't take into consideration the Victim Impact Statement as the law only allows the reading of such statements in a criminal trial (the offender pleaded guilty so it went straight to sentencing). However, she was able to take into account his upbringing (foster child moved to different families, bad environment). This is an example of where law reform needs to take place


Hayley

 

[wannaspoon]

startling similarity... totally not murder in Australia... total BS IMHO...

http://www.kisscleveland.com/pages/java.html?article=11815092

bet the fucker was playing that game...

 

[isildurrrr1]

startling similarity... totally not murder in Australia... total BS IMHO...

http://www.kisscleveland.com/pages/java.html?article=11815092

bet the fucker was playing that game...

cleveland is a shithole

 

[wannaspoon]

pffftt...

this... is... Cleveland...

the part where the lady got king hit from behind was actually in the UK

 

[someth1ng]

Way too lenient - I'd say at least 15 years non-parole for the manslaughter, alone. Probably another 5 years for the other cases combined.

The fact is that this kind of behaviour is simply unacceptable - the only time you should hit someone is in self-defence (and some sports), pretty much nothing else.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Way too lenient - I'd say at least 15 years non-parole for the manslaughter, alone. Probably another 5 years for the other cases combined.

The fact is that this kind of behaviour is simply unacceptable - the only time you should hit someone is in self-defence (and some sports), pretty much nothing else.

You cannot control yourself if you are drunk (excessively ) .... It's like if you are on drugs, you can't stop being high.

Tipsy is a different story, but blind drunk is different.

 

[enoilgam]

You cannot control yourself if you are drunk (excessively ) .... It's like if you are on drugs, you can't stop being high.

That's not what the law says.