Two parties were involved in the case; these were the state represented by the office of the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions otherwise referred to as Regina and the accused, named Patricia Mary Butler. Hence the case named R v Butler (2012) NSWSC 1227.
The court and the judge
The case was heard at the Supreme Court, New South Wales. The case was brought and decided by Justice Button J, a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia.
The accused
The accused in this case was one, Patricia Mary Butler. The accused is a self confessed prostitute and drug addict. She has a record of poor social upbringing having been sexually abused by her stepfather.
Facts of the case
On Saturday 31 July 2010, the offender was plying her trade as normal as a prostitute in Kings Cross. The deceased booked her for purposes of performing oral sex in return for a payment of seventy dollars. During the course of the performance, the deceased in obtaining sexual gratification, hinted at sexual assault of children. The performance continued and later, the pair agreed to proceed to another location at Macleay Streets Potts Point for another round of oral sex in exchange for an additional payment of one fifty dollars .
Upon arrival at the second venue and on the performance of the second round of oral sex, the deceased displayed an internet online interactive site in which models were engaged in sexual acts. The offender was able to see the clip and took notice of the fact that one of the performers was underage, being possibly of ages eleven or twelve. The pair continued to engage in oral sex. At that point, the deceased mentioned having had oral sex with a child victim. He said that the child victim was actually the adult woman in the pair. He also alluded that he had had sex with the offender’s sister. However, these were mere fantasies tailored for achievement of sexual gratification.
Unfortunately, the offender had been a real victim of child sexual abuse and molestation. Her stepfather had severely abused her between ages eight and fifteen. In addition, the same stepfather had threatened to abuse her stepsisters in a similar vein if and when she reported what she uses to undergo. The offender had in the previous week been assaulted sexually. The thought of sexual assault, therefore, did blank the offender out .
In the state of having blanked out, the offender lost her self control. In the provoked state, the offender picked a piece of granite and struck the deceased on the head at least thirty times. She later grabbed a knife and stabbed the deceased on the throat three times. Compounded by the reality of her actions after the demise of her victim, the offender made primitive attempts of concealment of the crime. However, she was to later confess her crime to the police.
Legal issues the court focused on
The court considered the case as an act of manslaughter. The fact that the offender was provoked into crime formed the rationale. It was the observation of the court that the offender acted in her moments of lost self control. Given her troubled past especially concerning child sexual abuse, it was only logical for her to loss her self control. The court obtained that the offender did not commit murder for the two elements of murder could not be satisfactorily proved. That the offender acted out of provocation was sufficient to found a case for manslaughter.
Legal issues the court considered in arriving at decision
The court considered manslaughter cases. In fact, judicial precedents in Goundar v R, Forrest v R, R v Won and Singh v R were considered. It was ruled that the provocation necessarily availed a partial defence in such cases. The confession and regretful attitude of the offender also persuaded the court into believing that the offender lacked the mental intent to murder, that she had acted out of lost self control and that her reaction was logical, rational but unjustified. It was then that the court ruled that the offender had as such committed manslaughter and should be so liable. It is on these grounds that the offender was committed to four years six months non parole sentence and two years and six months parole sentence.
Critical analysis
In this case, the court can be said to have extended its leniency to the offender. It should be lost on us that the offender’s action did occasion the death of the deceased. Ordinarily, everyone ought to be subjected to the rule of law. The offender had no right or power to deprive the life of the deceased. That she had lost her self control and was in the heat of the moment of the provocation does not necessarily justify her actions. The courts, however, are usually aware of the social and psychological contexts in which such cases exist. The court, in this case, rightly observed the human feelings of the offender. The offender had experienced a troubled life. Sexual exploitation and especially underage sexual abuse was no ordinary matter in her life. Her memories and reasoning were biased by her own experiences. It was only logical for her to act in the way she did in the heat of the moment.
In such cases, justice for both parties becomes a tall order to execute. The courts are confronted with the tough challenge of applying the spirit and letter of the law without necessarily venturing out of the boundaries of reality. In addition, the courts are fully aware of the body of precedents their decisions would form. The onus, therefore, entails making a balanced decision that does not miscarry justice on either party. In my opinion, the court delivered justice on either party. It would amount to courting anarchism to let the offender go scot free. The court was, therefore, justified in sentencing the offender for a number of years. It is vital for courts to prevent and deter persons from taking the law in their own hands. Each and everyone should be ready to observe the rule of law and let the course of justice take its own course. On the other hand, the law exists for man. As critics do argue, man does not exist for the law. The spirit in this maxim is that the law must be real in its dictates. Supervening circumstances that essentially surround incidences must be considered in the dispensation of justice. It is in that vein that the court rightly considered the provocation the offender faced .
References
Bagariac, M., & Arenson, K. (2011). Criminal Laws in Australia: Cases and Materials. Canberra: Oxford University Press.
Gans, J. (2011). Modern Criminal Law of Australia. Canberra: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, R. G. (2008). An Introduction to Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia. Canberra: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Lanham, D. J. (2008). Criminal Laws in Australia. Canberra: Federation Press.
Supreme Court New South Wales . (2011, November 1). R v Butler [2012] NSWSC 1227. Retrieved October 18, 2012, from Supreme Court New South Wales : http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/pjudg?s=1000,jgmtid=161249
