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

[Brightbird]

Hi all, this is my first post. I found WS after following Jill Meagher's disappearance online. It's good to see a site discussing her story that hasn't dissolved into hatred. I live just a few kms from where Jill was taken and it really rocked me. I think it was just the absolute ordinariness of her night out, and that chilling CCTV footage that we've all seen. I've certainly walked home alone after a few drinks many times. I just can't imagine what her family is going through.

In response to an earlier post about whether defense could claim her death was 'accidental', Section 3A of the Victorian Crimes Act (with amendments as of April 1 2012), has a part 2 which reads:

Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

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.

(2) The rule of law known as the felony-murder rule (whereby a person who
unintentionally causes the death of another by an act of violence done in the
course or furtherance of a felony of violence is liable to be convicted of
murder as though he had killed that person intentionally) is hereby abrogated.


I'm no lawyer but this seems like the Act has been amended such that a manslaughter defense can be claimed if a death happens 'accidentally' in the course of a crime?

No it wouldn't. In Victoria there is an offence of murder when death occurs during the commission of an offence carrying penalty of 10 years or more. Rape carries a maximum penalty of 25 yrs. So wouldn't matter what intent was as to death or if she had died, say, from falling and hitting her head and not strangulation.

This is the relevant section-

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 3A

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.

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 38
Rape

38. Rape

(1) A person must not commit rape.

Penalty: Level 2 imprisonment (25 years maximum).
(section goes on to describe what constitutes offence, for the sake of delicacy no need to post it here)


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

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Hi all, this is my first post. I found WS after following Jill Meagher's disappearance online. It's good to see a site discussing her story that hasn't dissolved into hatred. I live just a few kms from where Jill was taken and it really rocked me. I think it was just the absolute ordinariness of her night out, and that chilling CCTV footage that we've all seen. I've certainly walked home alone after a few drinks many times. I just can't imagine what her family is going through.

In response to an earlier post about whether defense could claim her death was 'accidental', Section 3A of the Victorian Crimes Act (with amendments as of April 1 2012), has a part 2 which reads:

Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

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.

(2) The rule of law known as the felony-murder rule (whereby a person who
unintentionally causes the death of another by an act of violence done in the
course or furtherance of a felony of violence is liable to be convicted of
murder as though he had killed that person intentionally) is hereby abrogated.


I'm no lawyer but this seems like the Act has been amended such that a manslaughter defense can be claimed if a death happens 'accidentally' in the course of a crime?

No, what I posted is what applies, (2) refers to a provision which is no longer in force.

So (1) has replaced (2)

 

[DrWatson]

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.

(2) The rule of law known as the felony-murder rule (whereby a person who
unintentionally causes the death of another by an act of violence done in the
course or furtherance of a felony of violence is liable to be convicted of
murder as though he had killed that person intentionally) is hereby abrogated.

I'm no lawyer either, and I'm sure LegallyBrunette will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the second part basically just saying that the first part is now the law? In other words, it is cancelling out the more generalized clause, and making clause 1 the active clause - the one that has the condition that the non-murder part of the crime carries a penalty of 10 years or more?

But, as I said, I'm only the medico around here, not the lawyer...

 

[LegallyBrunette]

I'm no lawyer either, and I'm sure LegallyBrunette will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the second part basically just saying that the first part is now the law? In other words, it is cancelling out the more generalized clause, and making clause 1 the active clause - the one that has the condition that the non-murder part of the crime carries a penalty of 10 years or more?

But, as I said, I'm only the medico around here, not the lawyer...

Absolutely right Dr.

Part 2 (former rule) is abrogated, part 1 is the current law.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Floral tributes left at the Gisborne South site where Jill Meagher's body was discovered will be moved further away from the roadside in a compromise with locals upset over the ongoing attention.

Dozens of cars still visit the site daily and leave flowers or other tributes to the 29-year-old Irish national who was allegedly abducted from Sydney Road in Brunswick and murdered last month.

Diggers Ridge resident Bruce Wood, who attends the site daily as its self-appointed guardian, said the flowers would be moved several metres away from the roadside, which would ensure people still have a place to leave tokens, while also appeasing irate locals.

"People come here to cry, to pray, to leave something for Jill. I'm here every day to make sure everything is spick and span."

Plans for a permanent memorial has divided the community, with a proposal for a spring-flowering tree drawing angry reactions from some residents who claim it will attract too much traffic.



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/c...ribute-site-20121017-27rel.html#ixzz29efouDBC

 

[Brightbird]

No, what I posted is what applies, (2) refers to a provision which is no longer in force.

So (1) has replaced (2)

Thanks for clarifying! I think I'll stick to studying psychology I didn't realize that part 2 was replaced by part 1. Thought it was the other way around. Oops!

 

[oz_sleuth]

im not sure how to take a screen shot sorry, but on google street view, as you come around hope st corner there is a pale brick building almost opposite the alley where jills bag was found, the alaysa van is parked opposite, this building looks to have a camera above the grey roller door, if you zoom in on it you can see it better, and then further along there is a pale green building, 2 hope street, on the corner of little breese and hope street with what looks like a camera pointing towards sydney road direction, its up high under the roof at the corner of the building and there is an electricity box or something with wires above it on the roof. they both look like cameras to me, but may just be security lights? also notice there is a pharmacy on the corner, they usually have cctv too.

You are absolutely right.

I have taken a screenshot to show the Camera that points toward Sydney Rd, almost directly opposite the laneway. ( im pretty sure theres no camera on the next house, 2 Hope St, as u said. Had a good look and i think its maybe a small antenna or something.)

At the very least this camera (if it was running at the time) would have shown AB follow Jill down Hope St.

Although since it appears he left ahead of her, it may have caught a lot more if he was waiting for her down Hope st.

And heres facing Sydney Rd with the alleyway to the right and the camera circled

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Thanks for clarifying! I think I'll stick to studying psychology I didn't realize that part 2 was replaced by part 1. Thought it was the other way around. Oops!

All skills are welcome and useful here

 

[LegallyBrunette]

You are absolutely right.

I have taken a screenshot to show the Camera that points toward Sydney Rd, almost directly opposite the laneway. ( im pretty sure theres no camera on the next house, 2 Hope St, as u said. Had a good look and i think its maybe a small antenna or something.)

At the very least this camera (if it was running at the time) would have shown AB follow Jill down Hope St.

Although since it appears he left ahead of her, it may have caught a lot more if he was waiting for her down Hope st.

Great job, definitely at least one camera, maybe some of the panel beaters have them as well.

 

[perthite]

I think there may be an issue with a lack of light with that camera, not to mention it's probably on the wrong side of the road. I suspect they have something from a camera facing north up Sydney Rd or something maybe on the east side of Sydney facing towards Hope St.

My gut says they have footage of him going down Hope St, maybe part of the shock from the Journos is vision of him sitting in wait or attacking her. That would explain the reaction, as the details we are getting don't seem to make it a horrific crime scene (relatively speaking of course, I feel bad even typing that)

 

[Curiousasacat]

I just came across this excellent missing person checklist.
It was created in Canada by the Saskatchewan police but it is relevant world wide I would say.

http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/adx/as...ilename=Checklistsformissingpersons-Final.pdf

Also some more interesting reading I know some will enjoy-
I haven't read it all yet.

A Survey of Official and UnofficialLaw Enforcement TwitterAccounts in Canada, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36761664/...n-Canada-the-United-Kingdom-the-United-States

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Did someone say that is a pharmacy on the corner of Sydney Rd and Hope Street?

 

[Cyansea]

Yes there is LB, are you thinking maybe CCTV? Also upon looking at the image I'm wondering what is the contraption sticking down in front of the doorway, could it be a light of some sort?

hope street sydney road brunswick map - Google Maps

 

[Paul mcGovern]

In relation to the memorial at the site where Jill was found...one of her close female friends PM'd me and said she wants to remember how Jill lived and not how she died...same with Anita...horrific events took place at these respective sites (Anitas being the boiler paddock at Reen Rd) and are not representative of how these women lived their lives...my personal opinion is that there are better ways to commemorate their memory

 

[DrWatson]

Yes there is LB, are you thinking maybe CCTV? Also upon looking at the image I'm wondering what is the contraption sticking down in front of the doorway, could it be a light of some sort?

hope street sydney road brunswick map - Google Maps

I think that it is just the illuminated sign ("Chemist") but looked at edge-on. The thickness would be due to the sign containing fluoro or neon tubes etc.

Here (hopefully) is the sign seen from a different angle:

 

[LeoBear]

In relation to the memorial at the site where Jill was found...one of her close female friends PM'd me and said she wants to remember how Jill lived and not how she died...same with Anita...horrific events took place at these respective sites (Anitas being the boiler paddock at Reen Rd) and are not representative of how these women lived their lives...my personal opinion is that there are better ways to commemorate their memory

I agree! It is a sad indictment of society if the most interesting thing we can say about a person is the manner of their death. It's life that matters - not death!

 

[Brunswick_Kiwi]

I cannot believe that this is being legally represented by a woman! Yeah, yeah I know, he's entitled to legal representation irrespective of the lawyer's gender. I don't care! As a woman, I'm outraged that another woman would stoop so low as to accept payment for representing this ! What he did to Jill was absolutely horrific and IMO it negates all rights to him getting free legal representation by anyone! He should be hung IMO! :furious:

But a man "stooping so low" wouldn't surprise you?

The fact is she is a lawyer, doing her job. He has a right to representation. The lawyer, male or female, doesn't have to like it, or like him.

I agree that a nice quick hanging would be ideal, but we're a civilised society in which everyone has equal rights

 

[SheepMan]

I think there may be an issue with a lack of light with that camera, not to mention it's probably on the wrong side of the road. I suspect they have something from a camera facing north up Sydney Rd or something maybe on the east side of Sydney facing towards Hope St.

My gut says they have footage of him going down Hope St, maybe part of the shock from the Journos is vision of him sitting in wait or attacking her. That would explain the reaction, as the details we are getting don't seem to make it a horrific crime scene (relatively speaking of course, I feel bad even typing that)

I seem to remember a poster very early on saying this was a "dummy camera"

 

[Curiousasacat]

Did anyone see this report?
A spookingly similiar case but in the UK. Very sad : (

http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...d-by-carl-powell/story-fndo4eg9-1226499323593

 

[fruity]

I think there may be an issue with a lack of light with that camera, not to mention it's probably on the wrong side of the road. I suspect they have something from a camera facing north up Sydney Rd or something maybe on the east side of Sydney facing towards Hope St.

My gut says they have footage of him going down Hope St, maybe part of the shock from the Journos is vision of him sitting in wait or attacking her. That would explain the reaction, as the details we are getting don't seem to make it a horrific crime scene (relatively speaking of course, I feel bad even typing that)

I had that thought too. When the media first said that the police will allege that he took her into the alleyway to rape and strangle her, my first thought was that it makes sense because there was no blood at the crime scene (from when they found the handbag). However, when the handbag was first found I remember reading that the police said there was no forensic evidence to suggest that the place was the crime scene.

Back to your point. The descriptions of people being physically ill seem to indicate something much more gruesome than what has been described so far. However, we don't know if anything was done after Jill died, perhaps this is what upset the journos so much. I hate to let my mind go there.

Another thing I thought of is that with the media stories saying that the police will allege he strangled her, we can be sure that it wasn't a gun in his hand in the CCTV footage.