Stafford-kendall tamika s5221148 casestudy 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Stafford-kendall tamika s5221148 casestudy 2 PDF

Description

ASSESSMENT 2

1014CCJ Homicide Assessment 1: Homicide Case Study

Name: Tamika Stafford-Kendall Student Number: S5221148 Convenor: Assoc Prof Nadine Connell Tutor: Tristan Russell Word Count: 1500 words Due Date: Monday 5pm, 21 September 2020

ASSESSMENT 2

2 Assessment 1: Homicide Case Study

Question 1: Within this case study, Shaun McNeil ("the guilty party") went through a preliminary by jury for the homicide of Daniel Christie at Kings Cross on 31 December 2013 (R v McNeil, 2015). Upon his arraignment within the sight of the jury board on 1 June he argued not liable to murder but rather liable to manslaughter (R v McNeil, 2015). The Crown Prosecutor didn't acknowledge that request in fulfillment of the arraignment thus a jury was empanelled and the preliminary continued (R v McNeil, 2015). On 11 June the jury returned decisions and confirmed that Mr McNeil was not being charged for murder but rather accused for manslaughter as he did not have the intention to kill the adolescent but did have a background of purposely harming others. McNeil's preliminary jury was informed that, before he attacked Daniel, McNeil had been in a battle with a gathering of adolescents who attempted to sell him euphoria. The 27-yearold punched one of the adolescents, at that point kicked him while he was on the ground. Daniel was heard saying: "What's happening? What are you hitting a child for?" McNeil reacted: "I'm a MMA contender." (news, 2015). He at that point punched Daniel, who fell in reverse and hit his head on the ground. McNeil told police he mixed up Daniel as being essential for the gathering of youngsters who had offered him drugs. Due to this horrific case, Daniel's demise set off extreme discussion over liquor fuelled viciousness in Sydney. Question 2: Shaun McNeil was 25 years old male student when he punched Daniel Christie around 9pm on New Year’s Eve at Kings Cross in 2013 (news, 2015). He was sentenced a maximum of 10 years after being found guilty of manslaughter and will not be eligible for parole until 2021. The guilty party has a criminal history in New South Wales and Queensland that initiated when he was matured 18. Prominent passages incorporate the accompanying: -

-

June 2006: Assault and Contravene apprehended domestic violence order (12-month good behaviour bonds) April 2008: Commit public nuisance (fine) May 2008: Fail to leave licensed premises (fine) February 2009: Assault and Contravene apprehended domestic violence order (6 month suspended sentences of imprisonment) June 2010: Possess dangerous drugs (fine) May 2011: Assault and Custody of knife in public place (good behaviour bond (with supervision and a requirement to obey directions in relation to counselling, education development or drug and alcohol rehabilitation) and a fine) July 2011: Possess prohibited drug (fine) December 2011: Assault (domestic violence related) (12-month good behaviour bond)

ASSESSMENT 2

3

The guilty party penetrated the security that was forced for the attack submitted in May 2011 by virtue of his inability to consent to the oversight necessity. He was called up and resentenced to a fine. On a similar event he was managed for the attack submitted in December 2011 and set on a bond. His reaction to oversight under that bond was checkered, no doubt. At the point when the time of the bond lapsed his record was supported with documentations such that his reaction had been inadmissible; he had neglected to attempt any type of mediation corresponding to outrage the board; and he was "unacceptable for future requests". The wrongdoer's later case to Dr Furst that he went to an anger managements course just as medication and liquor guiding, by and large fortnightly, all through 2013 as indicated by the details of this bond was evidently false. More information on the offender’s background include that his parents separated when he was a newborn child and he had no significant relationship with his natural dad although both his mother and stepfather were supportive of him. Mr McNeil left school in Year 11 and has commonly been utilized in accommodation, development and expulsions. Although further down the track there is a background marked by medication and liquor misuse. He gave a record to Dr Richard Furst, criminological specialist, of hard-core boozing liquor on ends of the week when he was in his late adolescent years. He professed to have halted for some time yet drank on most ends of the week when he was matured 20 and 21. He started a relationship with Ms Sonya Walker when he was around 21 and asserted that she "transformed him". He told the specialist that he devoured just a negligible measure of liquor as of late. Nonetheless, he was utilizing the medication known as "ice" in 2011 to 2013, yet just on ends of the week, and had recently utilized rapture. He denied any significant debilitation from drug use and talked about working extended periods of time with his stepfather. The wrongdoer additionally gave a record to Dr Furst of psychological wellness issues. He gave a past filled with tension and misery from the age of 12 to which he encountered alarm assaults. He viewed himself as "touchy and defenceless". There was an admission to a mental unit in 2009 after a self-destruction endeavour. At the hour of seeing Dr Furst (April 2014) he was being recommended Seroquel which the specialist said seemed, by all accounts, to be for his uneasiness and alteration issues. Question 3: The characteristics of the offender are evident to be quite similar from general patterns in offenders who commit this particular type of homicide. Common characteristics include past experience with drugs or anger related issues, alcohol, the immaturity for violence, as well as age and gender. Offenders between the age of 20-25 years take up the largest portion that is more likely to take up this crime, with 72% being male in News South Whales (abs, 2020). It is also evident that 79% of those that commit manslaughter had the intent to cause injury but not kill. This relates to the Mr McNeil case study as it was made aware that he had the intent to harm another individual without realising the serious consequences that would follow. It is also evident that 65% of offenders have a criminal background (AIC, 2006). This then again relates to the case study as the offender had a history of violence and anger

ASSESSMENT 2

4

management issues. When the acts are committed, statistics show that 76% of male offenders are under the influence of alcohol (AIC, 2006). Question 4: The victim, Daniel Christie, was an 18-year-old male at the time of the incident . The Christie family turned off his life support on Saturday afternoon at St Vincent's Hospital, where Daniel had been in a coma for the past 11 days after he was attacked on New Year's Eve in Kings Cross (smh, 2014). Daniel had received his HSC posthumously meaning he was still a student with his full life ahead of him. It was evident that Mr Christie was a young and healthy adolescent that was kind and respectful to others. He was mature and kept himself out of trouble and never had a previous criminal history, previous victimisation, or healthrelated issues up until the fatal incident that caused him a fractured skull (theguardian, 2015). Question 5: The characteristic of the victim was evident to be quite similar as well as differ to the general patterns for this particular type of homicide. Statistics show that 63% of victims happen to be male although the average age for manslaughter victims are 35 years old (AIC, 2006). Mr Christie also differs from other victims as 39% of them also have a criminal background. There is no information found to support that Daniel took part in any criminal activity before the incident. Although it was found that out of all victims, 57% of males in Australia were found to have died from some sort of beating with 35% being with the use of the offender’s hands or feet (AIC, 2006). Daniel Christie is now part of the statistic as the offender used the coward punch method in order to harm the offender. Question 6: There were multiple warning signs that emerged as risk factors in the lead up to the homicide incident in this case. firstly, if Daniel was known to the presence of the drugs with the teenage group, he may have approached differently, and he may have been able to identify that there was trouble and an incident would occur. Secondly, the yelling and the arguing would have been a clear indication that the individuals were angry and in an aggressive state of mind. This is then followed by the presence and abuse of alcohol. Alcohol is a significant factor as the World Health Organisation states: alcohol assumption is a factor of aggressive behaviour compared to any other use of substance (business insider, 2017). Lastly, the most obvious risk factor leading up to the incident was the fighting when the offender had previously hit another teenager. This act made it clear that Shaun was a violent person who was in a state to commit violent and life-threaten acts. Question 7: There were multiple potential guardians in this case who had the power to potentially protect the victim from being harmed by the offender. Firstly, his brother had the most power as he was there and had the ability to notice the danger his brother was about to put

ASSESSMENT 2

5

himself in and could have stopped the whole incident from occurring. Secondly, the adults and individuals surrounding the area in King Street on the night of New Year’s Eve could have provided more support and called police to stop the outbreak before it got worse or at least provided more of an assistance to Daniel as he was laying on the ground defenceless. It is evident that Daniel was on life support for the following 11 days after the incident. There is a slight chance that he could have survived the crime if his parents left the machine on. Although this is controversial topic, further examination could have stated that he could have overcome the incident. Lastly, the offender and his girlfriend could have played a large part in protecting the victim. The Shaun could have controlled the situation better and avoided the violent outcome. It is evident that he could have controlled his anger and himself from the life-threatening situation by walking away or dealing with the situation in a calmer matter. Experts made it aware that the offender had previous health issues although Dr Furst said that there were no indications of the offender suffering from a depressive disorder in the weeks preceding the offences or on the day of the offences. The offender told him that he was "having a good night" (R v McNeil, 2015).

ASSESSMENT 2

6 References

Daniel christie dies following king-hit punch (2014) January 11, 2014. The Sydney Morning Herold. Retrieved by: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/daniel-christie-dies-following-kinghitpunch-20140111-30ndv.html Australian institution of criminology (2005-6). Monitoring program annual report. By megan Davies. Retrieved by: https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/rpp077.pdf

The guardian (2015). August 27 by Australian associate press. Retrieved by: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/27/daniel-christie-one-punchkilling-shaun-mcneil-jailed-for-at-least-seven-and-a-half-years Supreme court of NSW (2015) august 2015. R v McNeil NSWSC 1198. Retrieved by: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2015/1198.html? context=1;query=R%20v%20McNeil;mask_path= ABC News (2015). By Jayne Margetts and staff. Retrieved by: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-0827/shaun-mcneil-jailed-over-one-punch-death-of-daniel-christie/6728418 Business insider Australia (2017). May 18 Briefing. Retrieved by: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-much-does-alcohol-change-personality-2017-5? r=US&IR=T...