However, if you read the the judge’s specific ruling on murderous intent, the daughter’s evidence as a witness - including that she had no evidence ( from the mother or in living at the house) of previous domestic violence - was a factor in the judge’s ruling against murderous intent.
It dorsn’t mean it never happened previously, rather that there was no proof.
In that ruling, the judge extensively addressed the Baden Clay case ( and other precedents) largely distinguishing them on the facts.
The daughter’s character reference was relevant to the decision on the length of sentence.
Sorry but that is just not true. It has never been acceptable or within the Law for a man to bash his Wife or his Children. And in 1968, 50 years ago, a husband could not get his wife sent to Larundel on his say so.
It is true that Victoria Police were not as robust in carrying out their duties for “domestic disputes”, but that is past history and changed completely.
Reckon there is a great deal of paranoia about this sentence. Just like Pedo Pell, this is an appeal option, so if the DPP think it poor decision, they will appeal the sentence.
That’s piqued me about this case, as very very rarely domestic violence is a once off instance. That taking into consideration all the facets of violence, but that’s the nature of controlling behaviour- so often hidden
*I didn’t say it was actually because of her very flattering reference for her Dad. I am saying the charge was downgraded from murder to manslaughter when in actual fact it was premeditated act, well planned and apparently a brutal act. The DPP for some reason did not appeal and it was left wide open for an appeal.
So, who is on the take? Or, was it simply to speed up the process. Or, was sit supposedly to save the taxpayer money. Any one of those reasons would be a damn disgrace but certainly no surprise to many people.
Isn’t the issue that this is all unknown?
Agreed and there is a real similarity between paedophiles and serious violent offenders and that is, both are in complete denial of their own behaviour. Even if they happen to be caught on camera will still deny it. Dissociation at it very worst.
My biggest problem with all this is that by hiding her and lying for so long, much of the physical evidence is lost. Ie - actual cause of death hasn’t been definitively determined. And then he has refused to provide any details around it. Yet the judge has decided - despite noting Ristevskis’s refusal to reveal the course of events - that it wasn’t “high level” manslaughter. How!? Imo, it should have been “if you won’t tell us what you did, we’ll assume it was the worst possible”. I mean, he already escaped a murder charge, and his silence suggests that perhaps he shouldn’t have rather than being in his favour!. Imo, Hiding the truth and keeping your mouth shut should never be the pathway to downgraded charges and a willing assumption of lesser culpability by the judicial system. Which this one sure feels like from the outside.
And yet another woman dies…
I could not agree more.
Justice Beale stated that he couldn’t decide if it should be in the upper range of manslaughter and sentenced as such. As you state, how on earth can an ‘occurrence’ that results in a man killing their wife, disposing of her body, providing no detail and lying in the hope of avoiding charge not be ‘high end’?
It appears that their should be a far ‘thinner’ scale range in relation to manslaughter and that this should be at the very high end.
I understand that the charged person’s history is and needs to be taken in to account however reading ‘he had been a person of good character’ means little. Plenty of people get to 55 years old without a guilty plea to manslaughter against their wife so the net result of his time on this planet is abhorrent.
Most reporting on the judge’s observations relate to the sentencing ruling.
As in the Pell case, judges seem legally stuck with the previous good character definition as “no relevant prior convictions “ in determining the length of sentence. There is also the issue whether it should be a sentencing consideration in all types of crime. But to note that he only got a one year discount of the sentence, so it appears to have been given little weighting.
Law will never work that way and nor should it. You don’t assume high level guilt without evidence to substantiate it, that will lead to more miscarriage of justice claims and perps getting off.
What if he says “she slipped in the shower and hit her head and died”. Prove he’s lying.
He’s got a discount effectively for saying nothing.
His guilt is not in question, he plead guilty .
He wouldn’t plead guilty to manslaughter.
He pled guilty to manslaughter because there was enough evidence to show she had died with him there and he moved and dumped her body and covered it up. There was not enough evidence to show how she died and whether it was murder. So to get something the prosecution went with manslaughter to get a guilty plea with him not having to say what happened.
It sucks but it is how the law works and it enables them to at least get him in goal, even if it isn’t what they would like. And the judge cannot give him more time simply because he exercises his right to say nothing, he does have that right whether we like it or not. And the judge cannot ever assume high level anything, he can only judge on the evidence presented and what the law allows.
The whole thing sucks and it sucks way worse for her family but that is sometimes the price we pay to ensure the law works reasonably well in most cases.
I’m limited in what I should say about this one, but I just wanted to make the point that Chris Beale is an excellent judge. He’s a man of formidable intellect and compassion. He’s also used to prosecute a lot of high level cases for the DPP before he got appointed as a judge.
So it’s a sh/tty outcome but those of you saying the judge made an error etc - not correct. I’m sure he would have liked to have given him more but he has to apply the law as it is to the facts before him. And I guarantee he would have done a good job of that, even if the outcome isn’t ideal
This verdict like it or not has set a very dangerous precedent.
Anyone unable to see that has a blind spot without a doubt.
Yes the Judge may be all you say he is maybe but knowing he is hog tied by the law in this case, will he do anything to ensure the law changes??? Or will be do nothing and all and allow it stand??? This law in itself is unjust.
Not really. It’s like saying murderers who never get caught and therefore get 0 years sets a bad precedent.
He could not be proven guilty of murder in the exact same way.