GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #4

[SandyGG]

I do know of a case where a man confessed and later plead "not guilty" due to police coercion. The judge agreed under appeal.His statements were struck from the court records however he was still sentenced due to overwhelming forensic evidence.

I don't think in this case that a manslaughter charge would be considered even if the death was "accidental". Defences to murder like provocation, self-defense, etc. would probably not apply either. His only defence would be, that he didn't actually do it and I think that the evidence against him, unlike some murders, is extraordinarily strong.

Unfortunately, for those interested in what really happened, we will probably never really know. The Prosecutor may submit evidence to support the highest sentence they can get from the Judge but we will never hear all the evidence that comes out in a full trial.( Presuming that he pleads guilty).

 

[truthound]

Greg Barns is a barrister and criminal law spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...on-facebook-20121003-26zgt.html#ixzz28HzWJpgN

'' If Facebook and Twitter continue to be littered with adverse material about Bayley then it might become one of those extreme or singular cases".

This is what I was saying days ago. Lets hope it doesn't happen. Thanks to the mods here for their vigilance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[SandyGG]

On the upside, her poor family, friends and other witnesses won't have to go through events in the witness box and a possibly prolonged trial, hopefully.

 

[Fuskier]

Greg Barns is a barrister and criminal law spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...on-facebook-20121003-26zgt.html#ixzz28HzWJpgN

Amee thanks for putting this article forward. It is a good read. Balancing rights on Facebook, Opinion, by Greg Barnes, October 4, 2012.
Greg Barns is a barrister and criminal law spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance

I have taken an excerpt from this article as pertinent for our consideration as follows:

...freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It needs to be balanced against other human rights such as those which defendants have in the criminal justice system. The latter rights need to be protected because the consequences of failing to do so can mean an unfair trial processes both for the defendant and the victim of crime...[Unquote].

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nat...on-facebook-20121003-26zgt.html#ixzz28HzWJpgN

I noted that they did not mention WS as having corporate irresponsibility. Thanks to our Moderators and our members who comply with the rules of case discussion. We need a fair trial for the victim(s) of this crime. My opinion.

 

[SandyGG]

I have a feeling that in this case the evidence may be very strong. I understand the principle of a person being potentially prejudiced by media attention. If the evidence was simply circumstantial and they were being crucified in mainstream media I would be concerned. But in this case, I think if prejudice was ever claimed, the actual evidence may be weighed together with the possible influence of social media. I doubt that it would be just thrown out. There probably won't even be a jury anyway as I have my money on him pleading guilty! In any case, the jurors would have to be avid followers of social media about the case and I'm sure that they could find jurors that are not.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Morning LeoBear I take your point about sex not being the only thing driving rape, but I think that it varies and we can't generalise. Some rapists would be all about the power and domination, while others may be all about the sexual gratification that they can't get any other way. Or in this case, maybe knocking her out cold WAS his way of domination? Who knows? But I take your point.

And my point about the possibility of the death being accidental was more about the defence claiming that, despite the current charge being murder.

We just don't know what went on in that interview room.....

I agree with your theory, it's what I've been thinking.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

First post, very long time lurker!

I was considering some of Dr Watson's clever posts.
My understanding of murder is that an act that an "average" person knows could cause death even if murder is not intended is enough for a charge. So, for example, if someone was strangled or hit on the head etc and later died in an unbroken chain of events, it is murder.

Also, if someone dies during the commision of another crime, like robbery or as in this case, abduction, they will be charged with murder.

Hope that makes sense!

There are two elements that must be present, first is intent, or guilty mind - the mental element, 'mens rea', before the event; then the act itself, the 'actus reus', carrying out the offence.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Other offences such as traffic offences are different, there is no mental element required to prove the offence. In other words, police don't have to prove that you thought about speeding or planned it before you did it.

 

[SandyGG]

Yes, Legally Brunette. Mens rea is satisfied if the act is one that is commonly known to cause death and harm is intended. The phrase used to be "a reasonable man" lol, but has been changed in most criminal codes being a little um sexist.

As for death during another felony, I think the principle is that death would not have occurred but for the other offence.

Case in point- a child recently died during a burglary. I doubt that murder was intended but he has been charged with murder nevertheless.

And who can forget the last man hung in Australia. He shot a prison guard while escaping. He probably didn't intend to kill him but...

There are numerous cases. I recall a case of a man being charged with murder (in company) who wasn't even in the room during a home invasion. His co-defender killed someone else in the house.

 

[FruitTingles]

There are two elements that must be present, first is intent, or guilty mind - the mental element, 'mens rea', before the event; then the act itself, the 'actus reus', carrying out the offence.

That takes me back to my year 11 legal studies days! Very well said

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Yes, Legally Brunette. Mens rea is satisfied if the act is one that is commonly known to cause death and harm is intended. The phrase used to be "a reasonable man" lol, but has been changed in most criminal codes being a little um sexist.

As for death during another felony, I think the principle is that death would not have occurred but for the other offence.

Case in point- a child recently died during a burglary. I doubt that murder was intended but he has been charged with murder nevertheless.

And who can forget the last man hung in Australia. He shot a prison guard while escaping. He probably didn't intend to kill him but...

There are numerous cases. I recall a case of a man being charged with murder (in company) who wasn't even in the room during a home invasion. His co-defender killed someone else in the house.

Still doesn't mean you can succeed on a murder charge, it depends on the circumstances so in some cases the charge is manslaughter; or at trial a jury may find the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

The Ronald Ryan case was in the 60's, there is a lot more to the story.

It will also depend on the jurisdiction where the offence was committed, talking Australian law here, Victoria and NSW are still common law states, we do not have a Criminal Code, so it isn't as clear cut.

 

[DrWatson]

Yes, Legally Brunette. Mens rea is satisfied if the act is one that is commonly known to cause death and harm is intended. The phrase used to be "a reasonable man" lol, but has been changed in most criminal codes being a little um sexist.

Actually, to be picky, "mens rea" is Latin for "guilty mind". 'Mens' is 'mind'. It is commonly referred to as "malice aforethought".

Sorry - don't you just hate smartarses? :maddening: And I'm only a medico, not a lawyer. But I did do Latin...

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Actually, to be picky, "mens rea" is Latin for "guilty mind". 'Mens' is 'mind'. It is commonly referred to as "malice aforethought".

Sorry - don't you just hate smartarses? :maddening: And I'm only a medico, not a lawyer. But I did do Latin...

I did say that (re mens rea ) You learn that in first year Law.
And good on you for doing Latin.

Another point, just generally, not at you Doc, in Australia we don't have 'felony', it is an 'indictable offence'.

 

[SandyGG]

Ronald Ryan should have his own page if he doesn't already

I guess the point I was trying to make is that AB does not have to have planned or intended to kill Jill for him to be charged and convicted of murder.

I think the concept of what a "reasonable man" would know or would ordinarily behave has precedents in common law also. I do remember a Victorian case involving a man who claimed his ethnicity caused him to be more "provoked" than the average Australian man and the principle of the "average man" was tested.

Additionally, AB allegedly abducted, raped and concealed poor Jill's body after the fact. So even if he didn't "intend" to kill her, if they can prove these other offences and that he caused her death, he will be convicted of murder.

 

[Fuskier]

:candle:
Steve Lillebuen, AAPUpdated October 4, 2012, 11:23 am
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15034094/private-funeral-for-jill-meagher/
The final funeral preparations for Jill Meagher are in Melbourne. There is an invite-only service for Friday morning. Public access will be restricted to the city's Fawkner Memorial Park during the funeral, attended only by closest friends and family. :rose:

 

[LegallyBrunette]

SandyGG - this is what you're trying to say And explains how charges may have been laid against the alleged offender even where intent (mens rea) was only for the first offence.

Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria).

Rape

(1) A person must not commit rape.

Penalty: Level 2 imprisonment (25 years maximum).

3A. Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

(1) A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person by an act of violence done in the course or furtherance of a crime the necessary
elements of which include violence for which a person upon first conviction
may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be sentenced to level 1 imprisonment (life) or to imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more shall be liable to be convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally.

3. Punishment for murder
Notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary, a person convicted of murder
is liable to-

(a) level 1 imprisonment (life); or

(b) imprisonment for such other term as is fixed by the court- as the court determines. (Why we need a strong judiciary)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/

 

[possumheart]

A walk in honour of Jill Meagher will be held in Drogheda later this month.
The Irish Times reports that Ms Meagher’s former schoolmates in Drogheda have taken inspiration from the huge peace march held in Melbourne on September 29.
Joan Farrell, who also attended St Oliver’s Community College in Drogheda, told the paper that the march is a show of support.
Organisers are planning a kilometre walk from the gates of the school, with hopes that they may be able to release a large number of balloons in a park near the river Boyne.
It’s expected to take place on October 21.
http://www.irishecho.com.au/2012/10/04/plans-for-irish-walk-to-honour-jill-meagher/20899

 

[Keentoknow]

Actually, to be picky, "mens rea" is Latin for "guilty mind". 'Mens' is 'mind'. It is commonly referred to as "malice aforethought".

Sorry - don't you just hate smartarses? :maddening: And I'm only a medico, not a lawyer. But I did do Latin...

WATSONIAN INSTITUTE was very handy with Latin as well. Have not heard from him for a long time.

 

[DrWatson]

WATSONIAN INSTITUTE was very handy with Latin as well. Have not heard from him for a long time.

Heheh - my Latin is rudimentary at best, not so much "handy".

Haven't heard from Hawkins for some time either.??

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Heheh - my Latin is rudimentary at best, not so much "handy".

Haven't heard from Hawkins for some time either.??

My Dad did Latin at school (Nudgee), I only know medical and 'lawyers' Latin.
And they are trying to phase out the use of legal Latin which is a great shame.