Keiran Loveridge (2 Viewers)

[Crobat]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/kieran-lo...thomas-kellys-parents-say-20131108-2x5j5.html

I'm sure you've all seen the shit-storm brewing all over Facebook.

I'm curious to see what the BoS community thinks.

Was it too lenient? Why?

Was it too harsh? Why?

Was it just fine? Why?


EDIT: Yeah so I fucked up the poll... how to add 3rd option?

 

[Nooblet94]

That's absolutely disgraceful. Hitting someone like that should in itself be 5+ years, let alone attacking 5 people like that on the same night, killing one of them, all whilst conditional liberty. What a fucking joke. He deserves the maximum sentence for all 5 charges.

 

[nerdasdasd]

GG give him 25 years........... WAY TOO LENIANT.

 

[Rafy]

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

 

[Kiraken]

"Of significance is a previous conviction for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, committed on 28th January 2011. For various reasons, which I need not go into, the offender was not dealt with in respect of that matter by the Children's Court until 7th June 2012, one month before the current offending. That previous offence involved the offender gatecrashing a party. The victim was the young host of the party who was attempting to bring the party to an end at 11:45pm. The offender was intoxicated. He threw empty bottles at the victim and punched him in the face. "

lol so it's not really the first time either

 

[Crobat]

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

Thank you!

What's enraging about that is that the DPP actually agreed to the idea of reducing the sentence to manslaughter. The law specifically states that actions committed with reckless indifference to human life and with the intent of causing grievous bodily harm which lead to the death of a victim constitutes murder. The facts of the case fulfil that criteria - you can't deny intending to cause grievous bodily harm when you're looking to start unprovoked fights by physically attacking people on the streets, and even if he did, his actions on the night speak otherwise. He's even had a history of violent offences as well, which is usually an aggravating factor. I think the victim's parents had it right when they said the sentence "supports the offender". Let's hope the Attorney General will be able to do something about that.

 

[Kiraken]

Thank you!

What's enraging about that is that the DPP actually agreed to the idea of reducing the sentence to manslaughter. The law specifically states that actions committed with reckless indifference to human life and with the intent of causing grievous bodily harm which lead to the death of a victim constitutes murder. The facts of the case fulfil that criteria - you can't deny intending to cause grievous bodily harm when you're looking to start unprovoked fights by physically attacking people on the streets, and even if he did, his actions on the night speak otherwise. He's even had a history of violent offences as well, which is usually an aggravating factor. I think the victim's parents had it right when they said the sentence "supports the offender". Let's hope the Attorney General will be able to do something about that.

does the fact he was too drunk to think kinda remove that essence of intent though? Not saying the sentence was fair or unfair, but i think that is the crux of what differentiates this as manslaughter

 

[Crobat]

does the fact he was too drunk to think kinda remove that essence of intent though? Not saying the sentence was fair or unfair, but i think that is the crux of what differentiates this as manslaughter

I'm not sure, but I don't think it does. There have been previous cases in which the Courts have decided that the actions of people while drunk/under the influence are essentially their responsibility, since they should know their limit and their tendencies while drunk. This has applied in cases where drunk people have left clubs/bars absolutely wasted and hit a tree or something while drunk driving and sued the club/bar for letting them drive drunk, and another in England where someone got smashed and died after choking on their vomit and no one checked up on him during the night properly. I think the intent applies to the offender's mind state at that specific time, regardless of whether he was under the influence of anything. I'm not sure though since I haven't studied Crim yet, but it still seems farfetched to say "you killed someone but it's okay it's not that bad because you were drunk".

 

[funkshen]

the charge was reduced to manslaughter because there was no way a properly directed jury would reach a verdict of guilty to murder. the DPP doesn't go easy on cunts.

intoxication is relevant to determining whether the requisite mental elements (intent to kill or recklessness as to the probability of causing death) of murder are made out (Crimes Act s 428E).

his sentence is adequate. 5 years and 2 months is a long time and is a considerable punishment. taking in to account his plea of guilty and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, the sentence seems appropriate. the sentencing judge seems satisfied that Loveride demonstrated genuine contrition and was unlikely to reoffend. during his sentence he will receive counselling relating to his substance abuse and controlling his violence.

if you disagree with me you are probably a retarded, bloodthirsty cunt. the poll results and several comments above are an excellent example of why public opinion does not and should not have any role to play in sentencing criminals.

 

[honeycomb]

Way too lenient. The fact that he can be released once he is 25 is disgraceful. I can't even begin to imagine the pain Thomas Kelly's family must be going through right now. If someone killed my brother/ boyfriend like this and got 4 years, I would be furious.

I think he should get 10 years. I know the judge said that the chances of him re-offending are low, but there needs to be some sort of retributive justice here as well, and deter other criminals from doing this as well.

 

[funkshen]

Way too lenient. The fact that he can be released once he is 25 is disgraceful. I can't even begin to imagine the pain Thomas Kelly's family must be going through right now. If someone killed my brother/ boyfriend like this and got 4 years, I would be furious.

I think he should get 10 years. I know the judge said that the chances of him re-offending are low, but there needs to be some sort of retributive justice here as well, and deter other criminals from doing this as well.

ignores previous post:
appeal to emotions of victim's family:
sentence length determined according to some arbitrary standard:
harebrained notion that spontaneous, alcohol fueled violence is rational:

if you think throwing this kid in gaol for 10 years is in anyone's interests, let alone in the interests of justice, you are a retarded, bloodthirsty cunt.

 

[wannaspoon]

^this guy is probably going to say ignore my post too...

I don't care, just sharing my opinion; nothing scientific or rational about it...

does the fact he was too drunk to think kinda remove that essence of intent though? Not saying the sentence was fair or unfair, but i think that is the crux of what differentiates this as manslaughter

Nope... from what I'm aware of and what I know (don't hold me to this)... intoxication which is caused by the defendant (eg getting blind from drinking to much) does not limit your liability to murder... the court takes the approach of "you put that shit in your system, you deal with the consequences"

Tad too lenient... should have been at least 10 year non parole period imho...

Kind of expresses the mentality police and the court have about this shit... had a mate who got beat down on a night out over no reason... cops did not give a fuck... this case would have been a good time for the court to deter by giving him a really lengthy sentence... the streets are fucked during a night out

 

[funkshen]

^this guy is probably going to say ignore my post too...

I don't care, just sharing my opinion; nothing scientific or rational about it...



Nope... from what I'm aware of and what I know (don't hold me to this)... intoxication which is caused by the defendant (eg getting blind from drinking to much) does not limit your liability to murder... the court takes the approach of "you put that shit in your system, you deal with the consequences"

Tad too lenient... should have been at least 10 year non parole period imho...

Kind of expresses the mentality police and the court have about this shit... had a mate who got beat down on a night out over no reason... cops did not give a fuck... this case would have been a good time for the court to deter by giving him a really lengthy sentence... the streets are fucked during a night out

if you read my post you would realise that self-induced intoxication is relevant regarding establishing the mental elements necessary for a finding of murder.

your inability to read previous posts leads me to believe that you are an idiot. chances are your mate who got """"beat down"""" was also an idiot. maybe that's why the cops didn't care?

p.s. your opinion is stupid

 

[Kiraken]

^this guy is probably going to say ignore my post too...

I don't care, just sharing my opinion; nothing scientific or rational about it...



Nope... from what I'm aware of and what I know (don't hold me to this)... intoxication which is caused by the defendant (eg getting blind from drinking to much) does not limit your liability to murder... the court takes the approach of "you put that shit in your system, you deal with the consequences"

Tad too lenient... should have been at least 10 year non parole period imho...

Kind of expresses the mentality police and the court have about this shit... had a mate who got beat down on a night out over no reason... cops did not give a fuck... this case would have been a good time for the court to deter by giving him a really lengthy sentence... the streets are fucked during a night out

well actually I think it would considering that i highly *highly* doubt that he had any intent to kill thomas kelly (considering he didn't even know him etc.) and such an action was largely fuelled by his intoxicated state. Sure, it was his decision to get intoxicated but this doesn't mean that everything he did afterwards was 100% intentional.

As for your mate, what was the altercation over? Did he provoke the other person or willingly engage in these fisticuffs?

 

[wannaspoon]

if you read my post you would realise that self-induced intoxication is relevant regarding establishing the mental elements necessary for a finding of murder.

your inability to read previous posts leads me to believe that you are an idiot. chances are your mate who got """"beat down"""" was also an idiot. maybe that's why the cops didn't care?

p.s. your opinion is stupid

Firstly, you are making assumptions about something you know nothing about... something that you actually criticised half the people on here about...

Secondly, did you read the whole section you referred to...

If evidence of intoxication at the time of the relevant conduct results in a person being acquitted of murder:

(a) in the case of intoxication that was self-induced-evidence of that intoxication cannot be taken into account in determining whether the person had the requisite mens rea for manslaughter, or
(b) in the case of intoxication that was not self-induced-evidence of that intoxication may be taken into account in determining whether the person had the requisite mens rea for manslaughter.

Its saying, self induced intoxication CANNOT be used to negate a persons intention to kill (downgrade a charge from murder to manslaughter) and involuntary intoxication MAY be used... Meaning the DPP should have argued that the accused ought to have know the probable consequences of his actions (and pushed for murder)... The guy beat down four people on the same night and killed one and was on probation at the time... he should fucking rot in gaol... there's people who have been caught trafficking marijuana that have got more time than what he got...

His intention was purely based on going out that night and causing trouble...

well actually I think it would considering that i highly *highly* doubt that he had any intent to kill thomas kelly (considering he didn't even know him etc.) and such an action was largely fuelled by his intoxicated state. Sure, it was his decision to get intoxicated but this doesn't mean that everything he did afterwards was 100% intentional.

As for your mate, what was the altercation over? Did he provoke the other person or willingly engage in these fisticuffs?

He actually got beat down and had his wallet and phone stolen (he was mugged)... it took the cops 20 minutes to rock up so, yeah...

 

[Nooblet94]

the charge was reduced to manslaughter because there was no way a properly directed jury would reach a verdict of guilty to murder. the DPP doesn't go easy on cunts.

Isn't the maximum sentence for manslaughter 25 years?

his sentence is adequate. 5 years and 2 months is a long time and is a considerable punishment. taking in to account his plea of guilty and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, the sentence seems appropriate. the sentencing judge seems satisfied that Loveride demonstrated genuine contrition and was unlikely to reoffend. during his sentence he will receive counselling relating to his substance abuse and controlling his violence.

5 years and 2 months really isn't a long time.

What are the mitigating factors in this case? I can't think of any.

From memory (so this may be wrong), but NSW has a ridiculously high recidivism rate for violent crimes among young males. So to say he's unlikely to reoffend isn't exactly fair. That being said, I support the idea of rehabilitation entirely. I think the non-parole period he's been sentenced to is fair, but to have to release him after 7 years even if the rehab and counselling isn't having any effect is just ridiculous.

if you disagree with me you are probably a retarded, bloodthirsty cunt. the poll results and several comments above are an excellent example of why public opinion does not and should not have any role to play in sentencing criminals.

Wow. Very mature.

 

[funkshen]

Firstly, you are making assumptions about something you know nothing about... something that you actually criticised half the people on here about...

i apologise for my hasty application of deductive logic. maybe your friend isn't an idiot just because you are.

Its saying, self induced intoxication cannot be used to negate a persons intention to kill...

no, you're wrong. read it again. evidence of self-induced intoxication is not relevant for establishing the mens rea for manslaughter, not murder. in fact, the entire section is predicated on a jury acquitting someone of murder due to evidence of said self-induced intoxication.

The guy beat down four people on the same night and killed one and was on probation at the time... he should fucking rot in gaol...

good idea. let's give him a lengthy gaol sentence. that's a great idea, because when in gaol, he will either be victimised incessantly and completely robbed of his dignity as a human being, or will become a hardened criminal, each making him more likely to re-offend. less likely to ever be an emotionally healthy individual and productive citizen, and all at the taxpayer's expense.

no you fucking idiot, that is the opposite of what should happen.

there's people who have been caught trafficking marijuana that have got more time than what he got...

thank you for illuminating the absurdity of drug laws.

He actually got beat down and had his wallet and phone stolen... it took the cops 20 minutes to rock up so, yeah...

sucks to be your mate but i can guarantee you are not telling the full story. assault is the most investigated and prosecuted breach of the criminal law, and i highly doubt that the "cops did not give a fuck". regardless, making such sweeping generalisations about the criminal justice system based on what happened to your mate is foolish. go bash a cunt and let me know how you go with the cops who "don't give a fuck".

 

[funkshen]

Isn't the maximum sentence for manslaughter 25 years?

aren't maximum sentences reserved for the most heinous breaches of a particular crime?

5 years and 2 months really isn't a long time.

actually it is.

What are the mitigating factors in this case? I can't think of any.

likelihood of reoffence, prospects of rehabilitation, remorse, guilty plea. maybe you could read the provision i linked?

From memory (so this may be wrong), but NSW has a ridiculously high recidivism rate for violent crimes among young males. So to say he's unlikely to reoffend isn't exactly fair.

go tell that to the sentencing judge. do you reckon he just made it up? yes, reoffence rates are high, but this has little to do with sentencing procedure and far more to do with the characteristics of offenders (poverty, indigenous, mental health, social alientation etc) and the tragic state of the Australian penal system.

That being said, I support the idea of rehabilitation entirely. I think the non-parole period he's been sentenced to is fair, but to have to release him after 7 years even if the rehab and counselling isn't having any effect is just ridiculous.

what do you propose? lock him away until he's rehabilitated?

Wow. Very mature.

i apologise for being mean to barbaric cunts on the internet.

 

[Graney]

Free Loveridge

he has done nothing wrong.

 

[wannaspoon]

you dense fucker!!!

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

The courts have consistently refused to regard self-induced intoxication on its own as a condition coming within the defence of diminished responsibility. It has been excluded on the basis that it does not cause damage or destruction of brain cells, but temporarily affects the way in which they function, and is therefore not an “injury” under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

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...