Australia: One Punch Laws

Muahahaha

New South Wales in Australia recently passed a law that says if you are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and you fatally injure someone with a single punch then you're going to be facing a mandatory jail sentence with a minimum of eight years. The cops will breathalyse you in the aftermath of the assault and if you're over the limit then the judge has no choice but to sentence you to eight years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-30/one-punch-alcohol-laws-pass-in-nsw-lower-house/5227078

Legislation to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence, including a controversial law for deadly one-punch assaults, has been passed by the New South Wales Parliament.

The Lower House approved the bill at lunchtime yesterday and the Upper House voted in favour shortly before 7pm (AEDT).
Among the initiatives are mandatory eight-year prison terms for anyone who fatally punches someone while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The legislation also includes a new precinct in central Sydney where bars and clubs will be subject to strict new conditions, including lock-outs.

The Government announced the measures last week, in response to pressure over the death of Daniel Christie from a single punch at Kings Cross.

Politicians were forced to cancel their holidays for the special sitting of State Parliament.

Premier Barry O'Farrell told Parliament during the debate that action is needed because the courts have not been prepared to hand out the sentences that people expect.

Here in Ireland we've seen drunkeness used as part of a plea for lesser sentences or fines. Only last year a well known journalist was murdered on Camden Street with a single punch to the head. His killer got a 5.5 year sentence, with two years suspended, making it 3.5 years with 25% off for good behaviour meaning he'll likely be out in 2.5 years.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0702/460161-man-jailed-for-killing-of-journalist/

It strikes me that the Irish and Australian legal systems view alcohol in vastly different terms. The Australians apply personal responsibility on people to the extent that if you get drunk and violently assault someone you're going to end up with a harsher sentence than if you had of done it sober.

KungPao

What if it's a knifey-spoony related fatality?

shruikan2553

Any person who commits a violent act while drunk should be put in prison or at least banned from drinking. Difficult to enforce but if they are caught drunk doing something else then they can be put in prison.

If you can't control yourself when you drink you shouldn't be drinking.

osarusan

Regarding the 'controversial law for deadly one-punch assaults'...

Because they have the horribly idiotic notion of the 'king hit' which has caused injuries and even deaths there.

You walk up to an unsuspecting stranger and punch them in the face, so they're unprepared, and the neck muscles aren't tensed at all.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

So, remind me again: why should being drunk get you a lesser sentence..?

If anythign you should get a harsher sentence for being so pissed that you coudln;t control yourself in the first place.

MadsL

First they came for our guns, then they came for our fists

DoYouEvenLift

Being drunk isn't an excuse for anything. We all make the completely conscious decision to drink and if it turns out that you're a scumbag kunt while drunk then you should've also made the conscious decision to never drink again or else deal with whatever consequences come of it. Almost everyone is able to control themselves and not go overboard while drunk, catering to the small minority of dickheads and giving them lenient sentences just hurts the rest of us.

MadsL

bars and clubs will be subject to strict new conditions, including lock-outs.

Yeah, I see the problem.

mandrake04

osarusan wrote: »

Because they have the horribly idiotic notion of the 'king hit' which has caused injuries and even deaths there.

You walk up to an unsuspecting stranger and punch them in the face, so they're unprepared, and the neck muscles aren't tensed at all.

In most cases it's the concrete that does the damage, a coward punch is one when someone sucker punches a unsuspecting victim. The king hit is a knockout punch but not necessarily to an unsuspecting victim most people have a glass jaw if you hit them in the right spot the legs go and once the head hits the pavement that's where the damage is done.

There was a case over the weekend where to irish brothers in Sydney were horsing around and one punched the other who fell and hit his head and is in intensive care. I can't see any malice in this and hope the courts don't make a show pony out of it.

osarusan

mandrake04 wrote: »

In most cases it's the concrete that does the damage, a coward punch is one when someone sucker punches a unsuspecting victim. The king hit is a knockout punch but not necessarily to an unsuspecting victim most people have a glass jaw if you hit them in the right spot the legs go and once the head hits the pavement that's where the damage is done.

I got the impression that the 'one-punch' law was specifically to deal with these sucker punches (I thought this was what a king-hit was - punch a random unsuspecting victim), as well as more legislation to deal with alcohol or drug related violence in general.

The Aussie

osarusan wrote: »

Because they have the horribly idiotic notion of the 'king hit' which has caused injuries and even deaths there.

You walk up to an unsuspecting stranger and punch them in the face, so they're unprepared, and the neck muscles aren't tensed at all.

I don't even know where to start with this, oohhhh the inaccuracies... (Neck mussels all tensed up... Lol)

Did the 2 Irish Brothers who sorted out a family dispute with one of the hitting his head on the pavement do it because they were in Australia. Did they have a To Do List.

-Drink in Irish Bar.
-See Darling Harbour.
-Climb the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
-Assault somebody.


Go back to bed, it's obviously to early for you.

mandrake04

osarusan wrote: »

I got the impression that the 'one-punch' law was specifically to deal with these sucker punches (I thought this was what a king-hit was - punch a random unsuspecting victim), as well as more legislation to deal with alcohol or drug related violence in general.

If you been drinking and punch someone and they die even though it wasn't intentional, its mandatory 8 years.

It doesn't matter wether it was unsuspecting or in a fist fight no one deserves to go out for the evening and die.

pickarooney

I don't get why punching someone to death while sober shouldn't carry the same sentence...

The Aussie

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't get why punching someone to death while sober shouldn't carry the same sentence...

It can and does, this new Law takes away any excuse of that they didn't know what they were doing.

osarusan

The Aussie wrote: »

I don't even know where to start with this, oohhhh the inaccuracies... (Neck mussels all tensed up... Lol)

Did the 2 Irish Brothers who sorted out a family dispute with one of the hitting his head on the pavement do it because they were in Australia. Did they have a To Do List.

-Drink in Irish Bar.
-See Darling Harbour.
-Climb the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
-Assault somebody.


Go back to bed, it's obviously to early for you.

What are you on about? What have the Irish brothers who got in a fight got to do with anything?

osarusan

mandrake04 wrote: »

If you been drinking and punch someone and they die even though it wasn't intentional, its mandatory 8 years.

It doesn't matter wether it was unsuspecting or in a fist fight no one deserves to go out for the evening and die.

Yeah, I get that, and I agree completely.

I'm wondering about the report which mentions 'including a controversial law for deadly one-punch assaults' and wondering what is different about this particular assault, and why it isn't already covered by the other legislation.

The Aussie

osarusan wrote: »

What are you on about? What have the Irish brothers who got in a fight got to do with anything?

This is the problem when you make stupid generalisations...

osarusan wrote: »

Because they have the horribly idiotic notion of the 'king hit' which has caused injuries and even deaths there.

You were babbling on about they (Australia) have a problem with Coward Punches, maybe they do, maybe it's reported on more after a few high profile cases, I mean David Keohane from Cork was beaten in a vegative state by a bunch of Cowards who were from New Zealand and the Pacific Islands while walking back from a corner store, can we group all them into your generalisation as well?

It is not an Australian Problem, it's an Alchahol Probelm, so it's not a "They have a ......... there", it happens on any street any where, it's causes countless injuries in Ireland every weekend and sometimes death, same as anywhere else.

The new Law sends out a very strong message that a second of stupidity has real consequences.

niallam

There's a reason this probably wouldn't happen in Ireland

Politicians were forced to cancel their holidays for the special sitting of State Parliament.

Ah sure we couldn't be doing that now...

osarusan

The Aussie wrote: »

This is the problem when you make stupid generalisations...

You say it's a stupid generalisation, but yet it seems you at least partly agree with it:

You were babbling on about they (Australia) have a problem with Coward Punches, maybe they do,

Maybe the do, and maybe it's more of a problem than other places (such as New Zealand or Ireland), maybe not. Enough of a problem that they've legislated specifically for it, although they may just be more open to facing the issue than countries which haven't legislated for it.

It is not an Australian Problem, it's an Alchahol Probelm

I agree completely it's a least partly an alcohol problem, but that the 'coward punch' seems more prevalent in Australia than in a lot of other places.
Could that be because it's reported on more? Maybe so.

But it certainly is prevalent in Australia - 90 cases reported between 2000 and 2012:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326204

That 90 cases is 'king-hit' only by the way, not alcohol-related fatalities in general. and in 15 of the 68 cases where a toxicology report was available, alcohol or drugs were not a factor.

I can't find right now any comparable statistics for Ireland.

it happens on any street any where, it's causes countless injuries in Ireland every weekend and sometimes death, same as anywhere else.

Agreed. i didn't say otherwise.

The new Law sends out a very strong message that a second of stupidity has real consequences.

Good. I hope it has a positive effect.

Nick_oliveri

I'm sure we've all heard of someone being coward punched on a night out.

Maybe some of you would have no problem with legislation like this until you get in to a barney outside the local chipper, (your fault or his/her's) punches are thrown and your one just happens to connect "wrong". Wheres the CCTV when you need it. You are up **** creek

Maybe your fatally wounded or deaded "victim" - "Angry Anto" has twenty thousand previous' for unprovoked assault. No - your still ****ed. Sure who will give a Couric when there was drunk witnesses that heard him calling your girlfriend a slut and him throwing his first punch.

Mandatory minimums are just lazy. I mean why bother Judging a case on its own merit when you can just slap a mandatory on it whilst everyone gets paid extortionate amounts of money.

osarusan

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Mandatory minimums are just lazy.

Agree with this part actually. I don't like them as a rule, as it takes away discretion. That might only be a problem one in a hundred times, but it is still a problem.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I'm sure we've all heard of someone being coward punched on a night out.

Maybe some of you would have no problem with legislation like this until you get in to a barney outside the local chipper, (your fault or his/her's) punches are thrown and your one just happens to connect "wrong". Wheres the CCTV when you need it. You are up **** creek

Maybe your fatally wounded or deaded "victim" - "Angry Anto" has twenty thousand previous' for unprovoked assault. No - your still ****ed. Sure who will give a Couric when there was drunk witnesses that heard him calling your girlfriend a slut and him throwing his first punch.

Mandatory minimums are just lazy. I mean why bother Judging a case on its own merit when you can just slap a mandatory on it whilst everyone gets paid extortionate amounts of money.

Well no, because I''ve learnt that, if Angry Anto with his Twenty Thousand Previous for Unprovoked Assault kicks off outisde the chipper when pissed, it's best to just walk away.

Duggy747

Isn't this what happened to Eirebhoy?

Riskymove

osarusan wrote: »

I'm wondering about the report which mentions 'including a controversial law for deadly one-punch assaults' and wondering what is different about this particular assault, and why it isn't already covered by the other legislation.

basically this law removes being drunk and "only one punch thrown" being used as an excuse in a regular assault case to mitigate sentencing or guilt

"I only hit him once, I didn't mean to kill him" would, I imagine, be a position many would take where someone dies because they hit their head in a fall

Cee-Jay-Cee

Muahahaha wrote: »

It strikes me that the Irish and Australian legal systems view alcohol in vastly different terms. The Australians apply personal responsibility on people to the extent that if you get drunk and violently assault someone you're going to end up with a harsher sentence than if you had of done it sober.

There is sufficient law here to deal with all assault events, the problem we have is the ridiculous watery judges who have absolutely no grasp on reality and impose puny sentences (or none at all in many cases) for serious crimes. If judges started imposing harsher sentences then maybe there wouldn't be such a recurrence of repeat offenders getting silly little fines and sentences which act as absolutely no deterrent to anyone.

Muahahaha

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

There is sufficient law here to deal with all assault events, the problem we have is the ridiculous watery judges who have absolutely no grasp on reality and impose puny sentences (or none at all in many cases) for serious crimes. If judges started imposing harsher sentences then maybe there wouldn't be such a recurrence of repeat offenders getting silly little fines and sentences which act as absolutely no deterrent to anyone.

Agreed, for me its hard to believe that the guy who killed that journalist on Camden St last year will be out in 2.5 years whereas the same offence in Australia would have got him a mandatory eight year sentence. Its some difference.

Holsten

Mandatory minimums for any crime are wrong in my view.

If you do some reading on them you'll see just how insane they can get.

Each and every case should be decided on the individual factors, blanket policy is never the answer.

end of the road

Muahahaha wrote: »

The Australians apply personal responsibility on people to the extent that if you get drunk and violently assault someone you're going to end up with a harsher sentence than if you had of done it sober.

yeah, thats not called personal responsibility, thats called stupidity. there is no difference in punching someone drunk or not, if you do it, you should be locked up. being drunk should have no part to play in the sentence either.

end of the road

mandrake04 wrote: »

If you been drinking and punch someone and they die even though it wasn't intentional, its mandatory 8 years.

It doesn't matter wether it was unsuspecting or in a fist fight no one deserves to go out for the evening and die.

i'd agree. but sending someone to jail for 8 years because they punched somebody when drunk, rather then just simply punching someone is not good either. being drunk should have no part to play in it

AlanS181824

That's a bit mad isn't it?

Cant Handle The Banter

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, thats not called personal responsibility, thats called stupidity. there is no difference in punching someone drunk or not, if you do it, you should be locked up. being drunk should have no part to play in it. the law in australia is a "look at us look at us aren't we great" were being harsh on the drunks law.

Too right. Most lads can drink and not feel the need to hit anyone

end of the road

The Aussie wrote: »

It can and does, this new Law takes away any excuse of that they didn't know what they were doing.

no, it makes more of an issue of it because someone got drunk. its simply a "look at us aren't we great tackling drunkenness" law. you can easily remove drunkenness as an excuse by stating it can't be taken into acount in the courts

conorh91

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, remind me again: why should being drunk get you a lesser sentence..?

It doesn't.

Drink or drug usage is not a defence anywhere in Irish criminal law, and it is not, in itself, a mitigating factor at sentencing.

Addiction may be considered slightly differently if there is a real prospect of rehabilitation. But this does not apply to someone who just decides to get drunk and punch someone in the head.

The Aussie

end of the road wrote: »

no, it makes more of an issue of it because someone got drunk. its simply a "look at us aren't we great tackling drunkenness" law. you can easily remove drunkenness as an excuse by stating it can't be taken into acount in the courts

That probably sounded better in your head or you are not very clear...

Are they not removing "drunkenness as an excuse" with this Law?

So what if they are making an issue out of it? (Your faux outrage is humorous here) The more attention it receives the better, if it stops one knucklehead from assaulting someone is that not a bad thing???

end of the road

The Aussie wrote: »

Are they not removing "drunkenness as an excuse" with this Law???

no, its the wrong type of law. just a simple law that it can't be taken in to mitigation would be much better.

The Aussie wrote: »

if it stops one knucklehead from assaulting someone is that not a bad thing???

jailing someone for longer for punching someone while drunk, then someone who wasn't, is a joke and is an insult to those who died at the hands of someone who punched them but wasn't drunk.

The Aussie

end of the road wrote: »

no, its the wrong type of law. just a simple law that it can't be taken in to mitigation would be much better.

So it's the wrong sort of Law

end of the road wrote: »

jailing someone for longer for punching someone while drunk, then someone who wasn't, is a joke and is an insult to those who died at the hands of someone who punched them but wasn't drunk.

How do you know it would be longer?

Alcohol is mentioned in a lot of Irish cases how do you know the Judge is not taking that into account, there are a lot of discrepancies in run of the mill cases.

Here is a good on for you.

Cronin stressed he had quit alcohol and drugs and was receiving treatment for abusing both.

(Full story below)

Why was Alcohol and Drugs even mentioned in this story or even in the Court room? As a shoddy lame arse excuse in a plea for leniency.
It's used far more than it should.

So you don't think its a good thing that the attention it receives is a good thing, even if it saves even one person from being assaulted?


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pair-jailed-for-cowardly-attack-that-left-gifted-student-with-brain-damage-25913057.html