Remember the name, and be grateful that it wasn't suppressed this morning.
Now we know that we should apply the presumption of innocence to Phillip Bruce Bannan, but the facts in this case as reported thus far are pretty clear. We will be interested to see just how serious the "more serious charges" that the police are considering are.
We'd go for this one; section 171 of the Crimes Act 1961:
Two counts of manslaughter would give a sentencing judge plenty of options as per the following:Manslaughter
Except as provided in section 178, culpable homicide not amounting to murder is manslaughter.
Punishment of manslaughter
(1) Every one who commits manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life.
We're not normally vengeful people, but something about this case has struck a chord with us. We hope that the right charges are laid against Bannan, and that upon conviction, a sentence is passed which reflects the gravity of his bad choices and the trauma which they have caused.
5 comments:
Whatever happens to Bannan is, under current law going to be seen as inadequate, as his brief will be all out painting a picture of another victim acting out of character as a one off act of impulsive behavior, colored by his deprivation of a normal childhood while omitting the many well intentioned acts of intervention that viewed with the benefit of hindsight would have been better invested in others.
Now is the time to bring pressure to bear on making fleeing the law, as in this instance, causing death, to be regarded as a separate serious crime with consequences equal to a sentence for serious murder.
A murder charge, as has been vociferously called for by so many, will never get oxygen as "intent" to kill will be entirely unprovable. So what we need is a manslaughter as in this case, to be a new charge of "reckless manslaughter" with suitable comparable severity of sentence.
Well said Gravedodger. I agree with you; a murder chance has no chance of success as it would be impossible for the Crown to prove intent to kill. However, a charge of manslaughter as defined in the Crimes Act would be far easier to prove; the deaths of Mr Fitt and Ms Jordan were caused by the collision of their car with that being driven recklessly by Bannan, a disqualified driver. There are more than enough elements in my bush lawyer opinion to justify a charge of manslaughter, defined by the Act as "cuplable homicide".
"be grateful that it wasn't suppressed this morning."
Why would it be suppressed?
I have just heard this tragic and terrible news about Norm and Dee.
They are fantastic people, I used to see and talk to both of them, and had quite a lot of contact with Norm.
I am completely and utterly gutted, and resigned to the fact that the Defendant will be treated far too lightly if he is found guilty.
At least Police have laid manslaughter charges.
Two beautiful, fit, healthy people are no longer in our community beacause of the behaviour of one of societys losers.
Sympathy to the families of Norm and Dee.
We love you Norm and Dee.
Apologies for my spelling errors, I was in the moment when I wrote that...
Post a Comment