Right Sentence, Addled Reasoning

A few months ago, I wrote about Western Australia’s “One Punch Death” law and its potential for unjust outcomes at both ends of the spectrum of physical altercations via blanket application.

A recent Sydney case, in which Adam James Matthews, 38, was sentenced to a minimum of 11 years jail over the death of a man during a fight provides an instructive counterpoint.

I don’t think the sentence is wrong. The problem is with the muddled thinking and communication as to the reasons.

The victim, Scott Miller was determined to have died as a result of a brain aneurysm, which haemorrhaged when he fell backward and hit his head after being punched by Matthews. During sentencing, Justice Jane Matthews said without the aneurysm, Miller would

"certainly not have died or suffered any permanent physical injuries as a result of the fight”

It may be true that but for the unknown aneurysm, Scott Miller would not have died as a result of the fight. However, I do not accept that is certain. The problem in this case is that witnesses saw Adam Matthews stomp on Scott Miller’s head or upper body after he went down, unconscious. It’s THAT subsequent act, reckless as to whether grievous harm or even death could result and done to someone who could no longer defend themselves which justifies the murder charge under S18 of the NSW Crimes Act. The length of sentence is justified by Matthews’ string of previous convictions.

The only person who got it right was the prosecutor, Trevor Bailey, who argued that:

“It doesn't matter that the aneurysm was there. Matthews had started the fight and then punched and stomped on Mr Miller with the intent to either kill him or cause him serious bodily injury. He is therefore guilty of murder.”

Correct. The aneurysm is a red herring. The issue re murder is the stomping on a then defenceless person.

To claim that a punch CAUSED an aneurysm to haemorrhage and thus a person to die is a selective interpretation of the meaning of “cause”. It is the kind of argument lawyers are wont to make and why the intent of laws should be determined by the general public, not lawyers. Lawyers should be concerned with constructing laws so that they are logical and apply as intended.

Most people would take the view that a pre-existing physical defect caused the haemorrhage, which could just as easily been triggered by accidentally bumping one’s own head. To link an entire chain of events and then say that the first caused the last is not fair in many people’s eyes.

People should not have to resile from throwing punches in self defence or a fair fight because of the minute chance their opponent(s) may have an aneurysm. That does not describe the above case, the crucial elements of which were an unprovoked attack and subsequent stomping on a defenceless man. However, a court entertaining a causal link between a punch and death due to a burst aneurysm risks conflating matters with entirely different circumstances and leading to the injustice of people being charged with murder or manslaughter as a result of self defence or fair fights.