Sean Fewster: Charging teens with manslaughter over death of Lucy Paveley may be a bold move by SA Police

ANALYSIS: Charging Lucy Paveley’s alleged killers with manslaughter, not death by dangerous driving, is an unusual move — one that may indicate a bold legal strategy on the part of SA Police.

• Five teenagers charged over hit-run death of Lucy Paveley at Parafield
• Attorney-General: Those responsible will be sentenced as adults
• Tributes to loving mother killed in horror hit-run
• Emotional friends speak out: ‘Beautiful soul who put others first’

WHEN SA Police announced, on Monday, they had charged the alleged teenage killers of Lucy Paveley with manslaughter, more than a few court watchers were caught by surprise.

For almost two decades, the “go-to” charge in any fatal road crash case has been that of causing death by dangerous driving — with good reason.

The charge was created, at least in part, because juries were reluctant to convict drivers of manslaughter and leave them liable to a maximum life sentence.

Death by dangerous driving solved the problem in the jury box while creating, as has been seen, issues of its own in terms of consistent sentencing.

Over time, a more severe version of the charge — aggravated causing death by dangerous driving — came into existence, carrying an identical maximum sentence to manslaughter.

So why would SA Police charge these teenagers with manslaughter, and risk hypothetical jurors at a far-off trial coming back with acquittals?

It is difficult to say, given the charges have yet to be laid with the court, but the explanation may lie in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) and case law.

Lucy Paveley was killed in the shcoking Parafield hit-run crash.

Under that law, death by dangerous driving covers conduct that is “culpably negligent, reckless” or involving a “speed or manner” of driving that puts the public at risk.

By comparison, case law recognises the crime of “manslaughter by criminal negligence” — a higher bar than culpable negligence.

That offence is reserved for those who are not simply inattentive, or showing a lack of care, but are “so reckless as to show a disregard for the life and safety of others”.

Charging these teenagers with manslaughter could indicate their conduct, in the eyes of police, meets this higher level of criminality.

It may also be a way to preserve the chances of a higher jail term, given laws designed to strengthen youth sentencing have yet to pass State Parliament.

Following the outcry that followed the last killer teen hoon sentencing, which amounted to a 10-month jail term, this could be a very prudent move on the part of police.

Undoubtedly, they are making a strong statement about the seemingly endless cycle of high-speed hoon incidents that kill innocent motorists and forever devastate their families. The question will be whether such a bold legal tilt can survive the scrutiny of defence counsel and judges who, historically, are slow to bring the hammer down on young offenders — even killers.