R V Katia Case Summary

Introduction

The aim of this report is to analyse the case R v Katia outlining the legislation, legal processes, precedent, sentencing and the social factors that lead to the amendment of Section 314A Criminal Code 1899 (QLD).

Outline the law

As outlined in Section 303, Criminal Code 1899 (QLD), Manslaughter is an act of unlawful killing with no intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This was the first crime that Katia was charged with in the case R v Katia. When Katia committed manslaughter in 2006 he threw one punch with only the intent to stun or shock the victim, the cause for the death of Mr Markham was not the blow but the impact of the back of his skull hitting the concrete or bus stop chair. The maximum prison time for manslaughter

The cases that the judge referred to were R v George, R v Duncombe and R v Hutchings.

In the R v George (nine-year sentence), the accused, like Katia, plead guilty and only threw one punch at the intoxicated deceased resulting in death. George, contrasting to Katia, had a lengthy criminal record, was older than Katia and had prior convictions for violence. The differences between George and Katia would result in similar sentences however the prior convictions would lessen Katia’s verdict however the robber in Kati’s case may have increased the sentence. George received

The second case, R v Duncombe (ten-year sentence) was similar since both plead guilty and the deceased were intoxicated, this would result in similar sentencing. The differences were that Duncombe performed more protracted violence, was much older, had a criminal record and assaulted another man. This would result in Katia receiving a lesser sentence than Duncombe, the robbery however may have increased the

It is for the community and politicians to sort out what response, if any, there should be to it. All that the Judges can do is to deal afterwards, according to law, with the tragic consequences that occur.” Sparked outrage in the community and started the ‘One Punch’ campaign. This declaration by the judge is a message to society, the government and parliament. The judge is trying to encourage the community to make a stand, so parliament can change the legal repercussions of one punch cases to reduce the number of victims. The judge cannot change the law because of the separation of powers, this means that judiciary precedent has no effect over the parliamentary legislation or executive