Katherine Knight
1 OVERVIEW OF THE CRIME
On February 29th of 2000, after finally getting fed up with the constant assaults he endured from his partner; Katherine Knight, John price went to the Scone Magistrates court to take out an apprehended violence order (AVO) against Katherine, in a hope to keep her away from his kids and himself once and for all. Later that night, an unknowing Katherine Knight turned up to John Price’s house and they went on to have sexual intercourse. After this, Knight stabbed Price in his sleep, resulting in Price attempting to run away down the hall, this, however was an unsuccessful attempt and knight ended up stabbing him at-least a further 36 times. She then went on to expertly skin him, hanging his hide from
…show more content…
Upon arriving at the house, Police found Knight in an induced comatose state from several pills she had consumed, they took her into custody immediately and she was sent in an ambulance to hospital.
2 ROLE OF COURT
After a minor delay in the commencement of the trial, due to the jury needing to be augmented because of the nature of the case, on the 18th of October, 2001, Katherine Knight stood trial in front of the Supreme Court of NSW charged with the murder of John Price. All though maintaining that she knew nothing about the crime, Knight pleaded guilty to this charge, which was accepted by the jury, meaning that the case proceeded as a sentencing hearing from that point forward.
Whilst being questioned, Knight mentioned that she had amnesia, which was why she had no recollection of the murder. Because of this claim, Knight was seen by 3 different Psychologists, who all said that she did not suffer from dementia, however she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, but this disorder was not said to be the cause of her actions.
In determining the sentence, the defense claimed there to be mitigating circumstances consisting
…show more content…
(2) A person sentenced to imprisonment to life for the crime of murder is to serve that sentence for the term of that person’s natural life.
The fact that Katherine Knight was sentence to life imprisonment for the murder of John Price reflects society’s standards in that nobody should get away with taking somebody else’s life, especially in the way in which Katherine did.
6 THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN ACHIEVING JUSTICE
Once Katherine Knight pleaded guilty to the murder of John Price, the court was able to sentence her quite efficiently once all evidence was heard. The efficiency of this case and also the fact that Katherine Knight received the harshest penalty possible in Australia for her horrific crime shows how justice was achieved. Life imprisonment with no parole will stop Knight from being a further menace to society by eliminating her chance of re-offending. Anything less than this sentence would be seen as an injustice not only to John Price, but to the community as a whole due to the severity of the
1. The Case Osland v R was a matter appealed to The High Court of Australia from The Supreme Court of Victoria. The matter involved Heather Osland (as seen right) one of the accused, her son David Albion the other defendant and their husband/stepfather Frank Osland the victim. The Victorian director of public prosecutions on behalf of the Queen conducted the prosecution, and was the respondent in this appeal. Heather was convicted of murder.
By saying the individual on trial shall not live because they murdered another, this reflects back on the decision makers. It deems those making the decisions hypocrites. The court members are choosing whether one lives or dies, and if they choose the death option they are performing the exact crime the individual could be on trial for. Murder. The court’s final
Killer mother, who stomped her baby girl to death has her face slashed in prison in ‘revenge attack’ by two inmates. Recants videotaped statement Juvelky Jimenez Staff Writer A drug addict mother stomped her 3 year old baby girl to death, Olivia (age 26) had her face slashed in prison by two inmates in a ‘revenge attack’ of what she did to her daughter. Everything had happened in Portland, Oregon. Olivia Jackson was accused of murder last week, her partner John Jackson was found guilty for letting the murder happen.
The source examines the impact of victims being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, and the international approach to the issue. Australia has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) signed by the Australian government in 1972, which states once a person has been wrongfully convicted and they have received a punishment, by law they are entitled to compensation unless its proved there is an unknown fact which has arisen. However, this was never adopted into Australian law, as a result any individual wrongfully convicted and imprisoned isn’t entitled to any compensation under Australian law. Australia’s commitments to signing this is that all states and territories must meet their obligations under article 14 (6) which are incorporation of the domestic article into domestic legislation to ensure a legal right to compensation. Though a state or territory government does have the ability to make an ex gratia payment to a wrongfully convicted individual through a request or their own doing.
The verdict was not found to be guilty with the counts of rape due to reason of insanity. Morris Kent was sentenced 30 to 90 years in prison and also some time in Saint Elizabeth's Hospital. Kent’s lawyer believed that the investigation was not thoroughly completed and that the indictment should be dismissed. Due to the findings of Kent’s mental issues they concluded that the waive was inappropriate. He said that Kent was denied his constitutional rights due to the fact he was a minor.
In the case of Tara Brown’s murder, various groups of individuals are affected. As well as maintaining principles of fair punishment and deterrence, the criminal justice system has to consider perceptions of the victim’s family (secondary victim), the community’s demand for crime prevention, and the offender’s rights to a fair court hearing. The most likely outcome is imprisonment for Lionel John Patea due to committing an indictable offence. It is important to note that if this was only a case of domestic abuse without murder, it would utilise more time, effort and expenses to come to a resolution. This is due to the different circumstances and degree of abuse that the judge has to assess.
As with any criminal case, there are always a number of issues pertaining the stages of the crime and also the media and the general public’s opinion of the case. Many of the issues and explicit actions of certain individuals that had happened during the Corryn Rayney case had affected the interpretation of the case in someway for both government workers and the general public. By analysing the issues of the case, it allows a much more detailed view on the case and how most of the issues are linked in one way or another. One of the issues regarding this case was where a police officer had been found attempting to pressure forensic pathologists to alter their case reports to align with their best interests.
Introduction- Case Summary This case report is about the Llyod Rayney case. This case took place in Western Australia. Lloyd Patrick Rayney was accused of killing his wife Corryn Veronica Ann Rayney.
In this case, the cases R v Dean, R v Baker and R v Villa, were cited and used as a precedent stating that “where multiple murders are committed by the one offender, the offender’s culpability for each murder is informed by his culpability for all the murders”. Due to the similar situations in which multiple murders occurred in those cases, it was used as a referral for the sentence given. STATUTE Section 19A (1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) states that life imprisonment is utmost punishment for murder. This was a main factor that contributed to his sentence – life imprisonment. The other reason for this was Section 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Procedure Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Sentencing Act”).
The victim had no shirt or pants on, and there was a slice on the back of his neck and the back of his left leg. There was also the rope used to tie him up, which could not be identified by trace analysts because they had never seen it before. He wiped his knife clean on Eberle’s shirt, and left the
The male had cuts to both his wrists and his hands which were determined during autopsy to be defense wounds. The woman was found guilty and sentenced to jail. Later, the defense tried to argue to the courts that the male victim had previous assault charges with weapons and was prone to violence. The court dismissed these findings, as they were not relevant to the case at hand and did not bring any new findings into the case. The defense tried to argue under the grounds that if the jury were to hear about the previous charges, then they might have not found her guilty.
In the 1999 film Double-Jeopardy starring Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones the “Double- Jeopardy” clause of the 5th Amendment was questioned with a particular circumstance. In the movie, the lead character Libby has a great life with her husband and young boy. The husband recently had a business success and bought a yacht to celebrate. After a long night on the water with the family Libby passed out drunk from too much wine. When she wakes she is covered in blood and finds a knife next to her.
I saw the jury sitting at a long table. “Good morning,” I said nervously. “Today I am here to speak with you about the current situation of the suspect’s mental health. The suspect has had violent outbursts, and even believed hallucination. I believe that this man is not well.
She was emotionally very disturbed and socially withdrawn following the incident. In addition, she was also depressed with insomnia, poor appetite and had significant weight loss. She felt hopeless and worthless but not having suicidal ideation. Her decision for
In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.