Kieran Loveridge's Sentence Is Too Light, But It Was Never Going To Be 20 Years

I feel for Thomas Kelly’s parents, outraged that the turd who killed their son might be out of jail in a mere four years’ time. Had someone killed my son in similar circumstances, I’d expect a much harsher sentence, as would most parents.

But how long a sentence is reasonable for an 18 year old who kills someone with a gutless, blind-side king hit? 10 years? 15? 20?

Notwithstanding the apparently light punishment, there has been a significant amount of misreporting and misinformed commentary around the prosecution and sentencing in this matter.

Firstly, the DPP were almost certainly correct in downgrading the initial murder charge to manslaughter. Read S18 of the NSW Crimes Act carefully, including the definition of grievous bodily harm.

(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter.

Could the prosecution convince a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that a single punch, albeit a king hit, was thrown at a person of approximately the same size and age with “reckless indifference to human life”, or that it was thrown with the intent of causing permanent or serious disfigurement?

That would depend significantly on the relative competence of the prosecution and defence, which is hardly justice. Despite Kieran Loveridge being a waste of DNA who will almost certainly be a net drain on society his whole life, I don’t think he is actually guilty of murder. My sense is that’s how a lot of jurors would see it.

At least a downgrading of the charges to manslaughter secured a conviction for a serious offence (probably the correct one), particularly given the guilty plea. The DPP reduced the risk to justice to a single factor: the judge. As it happened, Justice Stephen Campbell let the community down. However, that is not the fault of the DPP. Nor is it the fault of the government: a manslaughter conviction has always provided adequate scope for an appropriate sentence.

Thomas Kelly’s mother’s complaint that “her family had no rights or say at all” is precisely why the separation of the judiciary and government is so important.

In minor matters, victims have a de facto say by their willingness to pursue the matter and give evidence. In serious matters, victims and their families should have no say at all in the nature of charges laid and eventually prosecuted. That should depend on the application of the law to the circumstances of the case and the evidence available. What is the alternative? Selective prosecution and sentencing based on the grief, anger and philosophy of victims and their families? Blood money?

Secondly, the sentence was not four years. It was seven, with a standard 75% non parole period. The perpetrator, Kieran Loveridge has been in custody since his arrest in July last year, meaning that he has at least another four years to serve.

The maximum available sentence for manslaughter is 25 years, but this would have been discounted for the guilty plea, then further discounted due to the defendant’s age. Thus, Kieran Loveridge almost certainly would not have received more than 15 years, even from a harsh judge. That’s a standard non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months, so with time already served, the media would have been reporting 10 years at most.

I believe most of the community would have expected a sentence of more than 7 years, though. 12 would have meant just under another 8 in jail, with good behaviour. Kieran Loveridge would be 27 upon release.

In prison, how much harder criminal would he have become in those prime years from 23 to 27? Is that detriment to the community worth the message of a harsher sentence, as well as allowing the Kelly family more of the feelings of retribution they want and likely deserve? It probably is. If the police keep tabs on Kieran Loveridge after his release, they will be able to tell quickly enough which way he went in jail.

I don’t accept the disadvantaged background = lighter sentence proposition. Justice Campbell stated he had “borne in mind the offender's relative social disadvantage and the difficulties of his upbringing” when deciding on his sentence. This non sequitur seems to have almost been set in stone after the recent High Court ruling.

An explanation is not an excuse. Does the background of the perpetrator make the crime have less impact? Does it mean they are less likely to reoffend? The thesis is that they are less responsible.

So the defendant’s DNA was methylated at key bases due to deprivation and abuse, making certain behaviour more likely. Well, what are any of us responsible for then? To make the environmental argument in a legal setting is a bleeding heart fallacy. It might explain actions, but excuses nothing. Thomas Kelly is just as dead as if he were hit by a private school educated investment banker.

Justice Campbell also stated that in his judgement, “the offender is very unlikely to reoffend”. Really? Why?

Someone from a privileged upbringing, with more support and more to lose is probably less likely to reoffend. Kieran Loveridge is one of society’s dregs. So are his family. His background makes him more likely to reoffend, cancelling out his “deprivation” excuse. This is where Justice Campbell has let the community down: Loveridge should have received no discount due to background or age.

The NSW Attorney General is correct to ask the DPP to appeal against the sentence. However, this is all the government can presently do. There is no need to bring in special laws, almost certainly badly framed. Manslaughter is sufficient. It is Justice Campbell who was the problem in this matter and his sentence is being appealed.

Without breaching the principle of separation of powers, what the government can do is make the judiciary understand community expectations around sentence ranges and the balance of retribution versus rehabilitation for cowardly acts.

What the government should not do is pay heed to ignoramuses like Ray Hadley, who would enact knee jerk responses to every outcome they don’t like, without a glimmer of understanding of the consequences or even inconsistencies. How does calling rugby league games qualify someone to lecture society on points of law?