Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults Causing Death) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 August 2014.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:23): Continuing on from the last sitting Wednesday when I introduced this bill, it is based on a lot of reasons, and there are precedents now for looking at this legislation, such as that in New South Wales. Talking about New South Wales, Thomas Kelly died in 2012 from a coward's punch. He was only 18 years old. It was his first night out in Kings Cross. Kieran Loveridge received a four-year sentence for that manslaughter.

Daniel Christie was in a coma after being hit in Kings Cross on New Year's Eve. The attacker, Shaun McNeil, a 25 year old, has been charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm over the attack. McNeil also faces charges over attacks on four other people on the same night. An article on news.com.au detailed 13 incidents of coward's punches in 2013 across the country. I want to refer to some media quotes. On FIVEaa on 5 August 2014 the police commissioner, Mr Gary Burns, said:

We've had concerns about alcohol fuelled violence for a long time now and we're really sure that the way that needs to be progressed is that people take responsibility for their actions and using the excuse of drugs and alcohol, to me, isn't taking responsibility.

A statement from Ralph and Cathy Kelly, the parents of Thomas Kelly, states:

Too often, alcohol abuse and excessive drinking is actually used as a defence in court as an excuse for their criminal behaviour. The time for excuses is over.

The Prime Minister, the Hon. Mr Tony Abbott, weighed in on the debate in January 2014, describing coward's punches as 'acts of gratuitous violence which are unprovoked' committed by 'brutal people' indicating a 'vicious, horrible change' in society. He further went on to say that 'the police, the courts, the judges ought to absolutely throw the book at people who perpetrate this kind of gratuitous, unprovoked violence'.

One-punch legislation is in other jurisdictions. I have based this particular aspect of the legislation on some broader legislation that the New South Wales government passed in the parliament, supported also, I understand, by the Labor opposition. New South Wales legislation requires mandatory imprisonment for eight years for coward's punches, a 20-year maximum sentence for anyone who unlawfully assaults another who dies as a result of the assault, and a minimum of eight years if the person was intoxicated by alcohol or drugs. This increased the existing maximum sentence by two years.

I understand that Queensland is currently considering such legislation and has a bill before the parliament. The Newman government's draft plan to tackle alcohol-related and drug-related violence would create an offence—unlawful striking causing death—to deal with one-punch killers. The courts will also have the right to ban offenders from nightclubs across the state for life.

The most recent statistics from the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education on alcohol-related deaths show that there are 70,000 victims of alcohol-related violence in Australia per year and 14,000 victims require hospitalisation. Figures relating to alcohol-related deaths range from 376 to 5,500.

Family First supported the government's proposal for a 3 o'clock lockout. The government put that 3 o'clock lockout in because it was concerned about drunken behaviour and the risks of that behaviour to the community generally. We are pleased that we supported that 3 o'clock lockout. The evidence is clearly there that that initiative has paid off.

In fact, the police say that the number of incidents that they have to deal with after 3 o'clock have reduced dramatically. Hospitals, particularly the Royal Adelaide Hospital, say that they are seeing fewer people coming in as a result of being attacked in Adelaide and the surrounds because of this 3 o'clock lockout. So the government needs to be commended for that initiative because it has worked. We supported that initiative because we could see the need to curb this violence.

I understand that the model in Whyalla has worked. I also understand that the Newcastle model has worked. However, what worries me as a legislator and as a parent is that there seems to be a cultural change in Australia, where it is almost a badge of honour for some people (gutless thugs, I would say) to go around the city with what we call king hits or coward's punches, deliberately trying to gain notoriety with their peers at the expense of totally innocent victims (most of the time), mainly young victims.

We saw a tragic case in New South Wales, where a lad was just walking with his girlfriend and another girl. A guy came up and hit him and he died. That is not what it is about. We want a vibrant city in Adelaide, but we also want a safe city. I believe that as legislators we need to give the police and the courts not only the tools but the direction in which the parliament on behalf of the South Australian community wants us to go not only to ensure that we can have vibrancy, a good time, economic strength in our nightclubs, hotels and restaurants but also knowing that we can be proud in South Australia that Adelaide is a safe city in which to go about both recreation and business. That is why I have introduced this legislation.

I commend all members and the Leader of Government Business in this house who have championed the White Ribbon ambassadors. I signed up for that quite a long time ago. We do not want violence against women but we do not want violence against anyone. I think we have to send a very strong and loud message to the small percentage of people who cause permanent injury, or worse, death to an innocent individual who is just enjoying the locality in which they happen to be. Therefore, I strongly commend this bill to the parliament.

This bill creates a minimum mandatory sentence. I know that some of the criminal lawyers and others in the legal fraternity will say, 'No, no, no, we cannot have minimum mandatory sentencing.' We already have minimum mandatory sentencing. We have minimum mandatory sentencing for drink driving, for example. There was an example of that last night. A woman in Port Pirie, who, fortunately, the police picked up, breath tested at 0.258, or some incredible amount—nearly six times the legal limit. She automatically, as a minimum, lost her licence for 12 months and still has to face the court.

The reason why the parliament passed that legislation was the risk to innocent motorists and their passengers when someone decides to drive a car, after drinking, when we know that the risks of having an accident are so much higher. I do not buy the argument that the parliament should not be setting minimum mandatory sentencing. If you talk to the community, the community are saying they want minimum mandatory sentencing; not guideline sentencing, but minimum mandatory sentencing. That does not mean that we take the discretion away from the courts.

The minimum mandatory sentence proposed in bill is eight years and a maximum penalty of 25 years, so there is a lot of discretion that we need the courts, the judges and also juries to deliberate on, but we are sending them a strong message. This is for assaults causing death where the offender is intoxicated on drugs, alcohol, or a combination of both, and is 16 years of age or older. As I said, the maximum penalty is 25 years. An additional offence of assault causing death carries a penalty of not more than 20 years. The penalty is lower because this provision does not have the aggravating feature of intoxication.

I am dealing with a family at the moment whom I do not want to name. I know that family; I have met with the siblings. I will be meeting with the mother very soon. They are a loving, caring family who live in my area and who tragically lost their son and brother. He was just having a good night out at Glenelg after the football season, just going out and celebrating. That person is no longer with us. It is sad, it is tragic and I have seen firsthand what that has done to that family.

When there are allegations that some of these people get absolutely blind drunk, walk through the streets in a group and take out anyone who they choose, I believe we have the responsibility to give the police and the courts the tools they need. This is one tool. It is not the only answer we need.

I support the Sammy D Foundation and the proactivity and commend the parents of Sammy. As we all know, Sammy lost his life in a tragic situation. We need to be able to ensure that we have a state that is above the rest when it comes to safety and opportunities for all people who want to enjoy what Adelaide has to offer. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.