David Penberthy: Hoons like this don’t deserve a reward for early pleas
THE horrific hit-run crash that killed mother Lucy Paveley appalled the community. So why is a reduced sentence on the cards for the driver who caused her death, asks David Penberthy.
THERE are times when a single punchy comment from a newspaper reader or radio listener can say more than any 1000-word column ever could.
That was the case this week when listener John, from Edwardstown, texted our radio show with a succinct critique of the case of Lyle Morrison, the 19-year-old in court this week being sentenced for killing mother-of-two Lucy Paveley in a high-speed, hit-run crash in Parafield last year.
“This Morrison guy sounds like he has arrived in court with the Entertainment book in front of him with the discounts he is after,” John wrote. “What a disgrace.”
What a disgrace, indeed. The discounts to which John refers are the possible 40 per cent reduction off Morrison’s jail term as a reward for lodging an early guilty plea, and the request from his defence lawyer for a lower-than-usual non-parole period on the basis of that plea and “cognitive function issues”, which mean his client is “greatly influenced by others” and “strongly led by peer pressure”.
For the purposes of this column, we will set the second requested discount to one side. Whether we like it or not, requests for reduced non-parole periods on the basis of an offender’s background, mental capacity and contrition have always been a feature of the law.
The area that is worth examining — and I would argue, attacking — is the legislative creation of discounts on jail terms in return for early guilty pleas.
It was the former Labor Government’s attorney-general, John Rau, who brought in this measure for two chief reasons.
First, to help free up the backlog in the courts and, second, to spare victims of crime and their families the hardship of an extended trial where the accused hangs tough and maintains their innocence, forcing all the harrowing details to be replayed and dredged through so a verdict can be reached. You can see the rationale behind the measure but it is debatable if it is working the way it was intended.
Based on the feedback I have received this week — which is immense — there is genuine public dismay at the manner in which this discount system may apply in the Lucy Paveley case.
This is a crime that appalled the community. Understandably so.
It was the third such case in just a couple of years, where an innocent woman was killed by hit-run hoon drivers. I would summarise public sentiment on this case as twofold.
If we are going to tackle the backlog of cases in the courts, surely we should exclude cases of physical violence and death from eligibility for a discount system?
And, secondly, are we actually compounding the grief of victims and their families by rewarding offenders for issuing what is effectively an apology of convenience — an insincere and tactical apology — rather than saving them the hardship of a protracted trial where the offender maintains their innocence?
Lucy’s husband, Jamie, sounds like a remarkable man. He has offered no direct public comment on this case, and won’t, because he is devoted 100 per cent to raising the couple’s two children.
He has been supported in rebuilding his life by AnglicareSA, and has issued public statements via its CEO, Peter Sandeman.
“This is a beautiful family that has been overwhelmed by the support people have shown in the darkest moment of their lives,” one of those statements said. “Jamie also advised that they do not encourage bitterness, anger or revenge.”
I don’t know how you would go through something like this without succumbing to anger. It must be even harder not to be pushed in that direction when you see that the perpetrator of such a shocking, life-altering crime is in the running to have his sentence almost halved because he pleaded guilty, especially when the facts were such that he was caught so red-handed that he had no choice but to plead guilty anyway.
The manner in which the sentencing hearing has unfolded invites cynicism about the accused’s level of contrition. It has emerged that on the day after the crash, Morrison was posing for happy snaps and posting them on Facebook, smiling in a park on a sunny day.
If you had any empathy and had injured or, God forbid, killed someone in an accident (let alone a major crime), I reckon you would be so racked by guilt in the aftermath that you would be balled up in bed crying.
Not so in the case of the discount-seeking Lyle Morrison, all smiles just one day after this sickening collision.
It is obviously up to the judge to decide how to proceed in this case — but it is up to the Parliament to decide whether it still believes that the discount system is fair.
The public clearly thinks it is appalling. Commendably, at least one MP is pushing for change on this issue, SA Best MLC Frank Pangallo, who asked a very good question this week.
“I realise such sentencing incentives, in some instances, spare the family from hearing potentially harrowing evidence, but I wonder how many of those family members would be prepared to go through that process to ensure the person responsible received a more appropriate jail term?” he said.
We received more than 200 messages about this case this week and less than 10 about the State Budget.
The message to the Premier, Steven Marshall, is that the public wants action on this, and wants it now.
David Penberthy is a columnist for The Adelaide Advertiser.