Judicial Responses to Alcohol-Fuelled Public Violence: The Loveridge Effect

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.

Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Published: 2017-09-01
Pages:123 to 146
Section:Articles
Fetching Scopus statistics
Fetching Web of Science statistics

Author Biography

Julia Quilter is an Associate Professor and member of the Legal Intersections Research Centre, School of Law, University of Wollongong, Australia. Her research focuses on criminal law and criminal justice issues, including alcohol-related violence, one punch laws, public order, homelessness, fines & sexual violence.