Abstract
After the death of Thomas Kelly (2012) and Daniel Christie (2013) in Sydney, New South Wales (NSW), there was widespread discussion and concern over the problem of so-called one punch alcohol-fuelled violence. A ‘centre-piece’ of the NSW Government’s response was the enactment, in January 2014, of what is known colloquially as the ‘One Punch Law’: the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014 (NSW), which includes a mandatory minimum sentence for assault causing death whilst intoxicated. This paper analyses the judicial response to one punch alcohol-fuelled violence, with a focus on the effect of the decision in R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120. I show that the judiciary has rejected the existence of a discrete category of ‘one punch’ manslaughters and, instead, has defined a category of alcohol-fuelled public violence for which there is a strong need for general deterrence. Based on an analysis of cases handed down since the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal’s 2014 decision, I show that the ‘Loveridge effect’ has been to significantly increase sentences in such matters.
Highlights
In recent years, the relationship between alcohol and violence has been prominent on the main stage of public policy debate in Australia
Much of the attention to date has focused on the response of the legislature to growing anxiety over ‘alcohol‐fuelled’ violence, the addition of a new homicide offence in s 25A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and changes to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), which introduced a special rule for self‐induced intoxication in s 21A(5AA)
Based primarily on an analysis of the 2014 decision of the New South Wales (NSW) Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) in R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120, and sentencing decisions made subsequently, this article argues that, the judicial response has been less visible, to date it has produced more significant changes in the criminal law’s treatment of violent, alcohol‐fuelled criminal behaviour than the changes made by the NSW Parliament
Summary
The relationship between alcohol and violence has been prominent on the main stage of public policy debate in Australia. The fourth part discusses the judicial uptake of the principles espoused by the NSWCCA in Loveridge, including recognition that it represents a significant shift in sentencing principles as well as attempts to identify the limits of the category which it created. This is followed by an analysis of nine sentencing decisions handed down after Loveridge in which the court was required to formulate a sentence in a case that fell within the Loveridge category. That the Loveridge effect has produced a significant increase in head sentences and non‐parole periods for alcohol‐related public violence
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
