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  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.
International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 2017-09-01 6 3
Judicial Responses to Alcohol-Fuelled Public Violence: The Loveridge Effect
Except where otherwise noted, content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Pages:123 to 146
3 citation(s) in Scopus
5 citation(s) in Web of Science
Search Google Scholar
Total Abstract Views: 1987 Total pdf Downloads: 4032