Kathriene_Knight

Regina V Knight New South Wales Supreme Court Mrs Townsend Year 12 Legal Studies Kaylene White Legal citation: Regina v Knight NSWSC 1011 – 19/01/2002 Outline elements of the offence: The murder of Mr Price was an act of horrendous nature committed by Katherine Mary Knight and falls into the most serious category of murders. The fact that the murder was premeditated is just evidence towards her cruel revengeful desire to inflict harm to others. Knight was quick to claim innocents in her violent relationships, whereas in fact she was frequently a serious aggressor. She had a highly revengeful nature; she seems to think that she is the victim in society, this may be due to her being sexually assaulted as a child but this is unclear. Although Knight had no real criminal record she did have a long history of domestic violence which was noted to police when applying for AVO’s against her partners. She was diagnosed with on-going incurable borderline personality disorder however this had no effect on the murder but would be a danger to the community if released. The case is marked out as one for which the maximum penalty of life imprisonment would, subject to any subjective matters in mitigation, be appropriate. Factors of criminal behaviour: It’s not known why Knight had such the personality she had. The doctors on the case described what she did on that night as just her nature. Dr Delaforce: “What she did on the night was part of her personality, her nature, herself, but it is not a feature of borderline personality disorder. It is not even significantly connected.” Investigation of the crime: The investigation process for the crime that took place was absolutely horrific, so horrendous that the highly experienced police officers that were assigned to the case felt the need to take stress leave because the situation with which they were confronted with was so abhorrent. As well as finding evidence to prove Knight guilty, the court had to investigate to whether or not Knight had amnesia. Knight claimed to have no recollection of the events that took place and so when in questioning she commented: “I really don’t know nothing.” “The last time I recall was I don’t know about your dates, but I went inside and watched a bit of TV” Despite her claims of amnesia, during the time of which she stated to have no recollection, she performed a number of tasks that required a steady hand, thoughtful thinking and skill. She drove a motor vehicle and operated an automatic teller machine during this time. The court decided: “Whether she remembers the events or not they are as horrendous. Whether she remembers the events or not, they were premeditated. Even if she has no recollection of the actual killing, dismemberment and partial cooking of Mr Price, that may be regarded as no more than a blocking out by her of events that are so horrendous as to cause revulsion and rejection by her as the person responsible for such acts.” The role of the Courts: The role of the court was to sum up all point for and against and all pieces of evidence found and to deliver a verdict. When dealing with indictable offences the safety of the community is in the courts best interest and to apply the most appropriate punishment. While it is true that if a plea be entered as guilty there would be a 25% discount on the sentence, the court was to decide whether it would follow this lead, however due to the seriousness of this event that would not be the case. Outline the role of legal representation: Knight pleaded guilty to the charge so it was Knight V The Court. The court was to assess whether Knight was aware of the possible outcomes of pleading guilty and to make it Known to Knight of her rights. The plea of guilty means no question of insanity, automatism or diminished responsibility remains open. The plea closes off those areas of consideration as defences. Identify the plea: On 2nd January, 2001 Katherine Mary Knight was charged with the murder of john Charles Thomas Price, she pleaded not guilty. With the possibility that she may change her plea to guilty, a medical assessment was required to determine whether she understood the effect of a plea of guilty of murder and the possible consequences which could flow such a plea. On 18th October, 2001 she was formally charged and entered a plea of guilty. Discuss the factors that affect the sentencing decision: The level of blame is of Knight, as determined, an extreme case. The murder was premeditated. Knight not only decided to murder Mr Price, but she also planned the timing and what she was going to do during this time. She than thought about a way of escaping punishment i.e. considering herself to be mad and that she was not aware of her actions, this possibility was assessed and was found not true. The safety of the community was of high interest which called for a sentence which agreed with the moral sense of the members of the community. It was also taken into account that Knight had no real criminal record, however did have a history of domestic violence towards her partners. The violence she presented was only part and parcel of her behaviour and a characteristic of her nature. Dr Delaforce diagnosed Knight with borderline personality disorder, however believed that this had no effect on the night of the murder and commented: “What she did on the night was part of her personality, her nature, herself, but it is not a feature of borderline personality disorder. It is not even significantly connected.” “Probably her killing of Mr Price and the mutilation of his body were pre-meditated acts of revenge and perverted pleasure derived from her grossly violent fantasies.” Knight was deemed to have no real chances of rehabilitation and would be highly dangerous to the community were she to be allowed out of prison. Imprisonment is the only way in which the element of personal deterrence can operate in relation to the Knight. Explain the penalty given: The result of this murder was a sentence of life imprisonment. The case had been described as horrendous and of the most gruesome kind, and was placed in the most serious category of that crime. Dr Milton and Dr Delaforce also dealt with the dangerousness of Knight; they both agreed that she would be a very, very dangerous person if released into the community. Dr Milton also commented: “Ms Knight’s personality characteristics are well established and are unlikely to change by the intervention of doctors or psychologists, a view expressed at least 25 years ago. Ms Knight will retain a capacity for violence and for being affronted by any challenge to a relationship, and she will continue to feel entitled to express herself in any way she deems appropriate (violent or otherwise) to gratify her feelings. There is particular concern about John Price’s children and other members of his family.” Analyse the extent to which the law balances the rights of victims and offenders: The rights of victims and offenders in the justice system are always going to seem unfair because the victim is the one that suffers while the offender maybe not so much. When the punishment of an offence is deemed to be too soft or not long enough the media and communities seem to think that it’s disrespecting the rights of the victim but each individual case has its own situation and issues to be taken into account. For instance, in NSW prisons, the estimates of the percentage of women prisoners who have been the victim of physical and/or sexual assault as adults or children are as high as 90%, many offenders in society have been the victim as well. Since 1996 victims have had the right to participate in most stages of the criminal justice system including bail proceedings, sentence hearings, classification hearings and parole decisions. However during research in South Australia it was found that only a minority of crime victims (5.6%) want to be actively involved in parole decisions, whilst the majority (53.2%) want no involvement at all. Having already been a victim of the offender’s actions, the victim may be somewhat intimidated so this is understandable. It may also seem unfair but victims should have the right to information whilst offenders should not. I.e. release dates, residential area and work place in relation to the safety of the victim. Bibliography: http://www.australian-news.com.au/Media/Regina_v_Knight.htm http://www.justiceaction.org.au/index.php'option=com_content&task=view&id=118&Itemid=114