Another blow for one-punch laws
WHERE is the bloody justice?
That was the question on most people’s lips after the five-year minimum jail sentence handed down last month to cowardly onepunch killer Richard Vincec.
The sentence was made more disappointing, some might say outrageous, given Vincec’s appalling history of violence and failed opportunities to change his ways.
Jaiden Walker was just 22, when drunk and drugged-up Vincec, who had already been thrown out of one nightclub for bad behaviour, became enraged when Mr Walker refused to shake his hand.
Vincec punched the victim to the side of his head. Mr Walker fell, striking the ground and suffered catastrophic head injuries. uries. He died six days later. Like all cowards, Vincec cec fled the scene and, even when apprehended by police, denied d involvement, later falsely ely claiming Mr Walker had d thrown the first punch.
Last month Vincec pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court of Victoria to a charge of manslaughter.
During his plea hearing, defence counsel claimed d the blow delivered by Vinncec was “not heavy”, that the victim had a “thin skull” and the fall was made worse by the fact “he too was drunk”.
It was also suggested Vincec’s offending was at “the lower r end of the scale”. So let me get this straight. A 22-year-old man dies as the result of a raging, drugged up, drunken coward and it’s “at the lower end of the scale”?
But it is the Office of Public Prosecution’s (OPP) failure to push for the mandatory 10-year sentence for coward one-punch killers that really sticks in the craw.
In 2014 the Napthine Government recognised the need to address the issue and introduced mandatory sentencing of 10 years’ jail for what became known as the coward killer’s punch.
Yet the mandatory sentence has never been implemented, with the OPP, twice in recent times, times including Vincec’s case case, re revoking its notice of intention to seek the mandatory sentence.
Why? Some legal experts suggest the legislation is unworkable.
More to the point, I suspect, is the plea bargaining process during which negotiations are done and deals are cut between prosecution and defence.
This is aimed at securing a plea of guilty, thus saving the time and cost of a trial. It is also taken into account in sentencing. Whether such a deal was struck in return for a plea of guilty in Vincec’s case, I can’t say, but I’d bet it did.
He was sentenced to eight years’ jail with a minimum of five.
In handing down that sentence, the judge said Vincec had “good prospects of rehabilitation”, would “struggle in jail” and had “shown genuine remorse for his actions actions”.
Well Vincec’s history has shown he has failed to reform in the past, jail isn’t supposed to be a picnic and, quite frankly, I’ve never seen a person facing jail time who wasn’t remorseful.
The court would also have taken into account that by his plea of guilty, Vincec had “spared witnesses the ordeal of having to give evidence and be cross-examined by defence”.
There’s no doubt plenty of witnesses would be relieved to be spared the experience of giving evidence, but I’ve also come across many who would have preferred to do so, but been denied the opportunity through deals between prosecution and defence.
Whether the Napthine Gov- ernment’s introduction of mandatory 10-year sentencing was purely for political gain or not, who can say?
But if you take them at their word, it was aimed at deterring others from similar behaviour and not meant to be used simply as another plea bargaining tool.
Whatever the case, the OPP must take responsibility for its part in failing to pursue notices of intention to seek the 10-year mandatory sentence in regard to coward one-punch killers.
And if the legislation, as suggested, is not workable, then both sides of parliament need to come together and make the necessary changes to ensure it is, that there are no loopholes and that a life lost in such cowardly and horrific circumstances is worth more than a miserable five years in jail.