Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[livinoz]

That's all true.

The courts in these jurisdictions [UK and Australia and some unnamed other] have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty.

Plea bargaining here involves a guilty plea, and a RECOMMENDATION from the prosecutor for a sentence; that recommendation is usually a negotiated item between prosecution and defense. The judge usually accepts both the guilty plea and the sentence recommendation, but is not obligated to do so.

In the USA, judges are actively involved in plea bargain negotiations;

That is not correct. The negotiations are between the prosecution and the defense.

... the doctrine of separation powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary which means that there should be no misuse or concentration of power, to avoid the abuse of that power. This contrasts to the USA system in regard to plea bargains.

The separation of powers doctrine is in the American Constitution, though I cannot say that doctrine originated here. In any case, I don't see how it is germane at all to the issue iof plea bargaining.

Yes, typically, defence counsel and the prosecutor negotiate the charges to be brought. But if the bargain pertains to the sentence to be meted out, a judge may also participate unless barred from doing so ( US Supreme Court: Plea Bargaining,  Harold J. Spaeth) Judicial regulation also implies that judges will retain discretion as to whether to accept or reject a plea bargain according to Welling (1987: 329). They may also act as an independent arbiter, unlike the Australian system.

The US Supreme Court was concerned enough about due process violations in plea bargaining, such as "coercion, false pleas, and injustice…. [and alternatively] excessive leniency, reduction of deterrence, and the value of the rule of law as a symbol" ( US Supreme Court: Plea Bargaining,  Harold J. Spaeth ) to make recommendations regarding this, so that is pertinent to concerns about abuse of power. Yes, it probably not be germane to the case; but for that matter none of the posts in this thread regarding US law are relevant in this case, and that was my point. Plea bargaining and the due processes of Law necessarily differ between the two countries.

 

[Ardy]

This is a very strange result and could be to do with Australia's love affair with all things American. If this had been an Australian he would be in jail for 15-20 years. The other thing was all this chest beating that went on locally about how they had more than enough evidence to confict him and then this.

They are going to review the sentence as it was reported in the papers yesterday but that most probably means he will do 2 years and not the one.

The papers reported that the attorney general of Alabama claimed there was evidence about him upping his wife's insurance before they were married and that he would be convicted of murder and get 20 years in the USA. My question to him would be why didnt you arrest him?

This is a very poor result all round and now someone is sueing Channel 9 locally as they wanted to do a documentary on this and Ch 9 had shown it on the news and therefore ruined their plans.

 

[alohagal]

Australia does NOT have "plea bargaining". In fact Queensland has no formal system of plea bargaining (Geraldine MacKenzie, How Judges Sentence, Federation Press, 2005). The parties may discuss the case before it comes to court however and agree, for example, that there is insufficient evidence for a certain charge and decide not to go ahead on that basis.

Our criminal jurisprudence has always accepted a system which allows an accused, charged with, say, murder, to agree to plead "guilty" to manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence. As the High Court of Australia has stated, the fact that a person has pleaded guilty may be taken into account in mitigation, and the rationale for that rule depends on factors other than remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and not on the basis that the plea has saved the community the expense of a contested hearing.

This thread is getting to the obsessive stage with some posters I think!

Tina's parents may decide to pursue a civil case, that's up to them. I think by going over and over this in the press, on the 'net and on various TV programs they are merely prolonging their own agony. And that's quite different from the fact I sympathize with their dreadful loss.

Police want end to plea bargaining | The Australian
POLICE prosecutors are threatening bans on court work for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in a bid to end plea bargaining, which they say favours criminals rather than victims.
The campaign, backed by the NSW Police Association, aims to force a review of the practice by NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos, News Ltd reports today.
The campaign will start today with a series of workplace meetings held at stations across NSW.
Under the campaign, police prosecutors could refuse to refer less serious indictable offences to the DPP.
As a last resort, the association will also direct police prosecutors to stop appearing in pre-trial court mentions on behalf of the DPP.
NSW Police Association president Bob Pritchard said deals were being made which favoured criminals, not victims.
"SW Police officers are demanding a full review of the plea bargaining system with a view to fundamental reform to end the culture of backroom deals between lawyers at the expense of victims and their families, he told News Ltd.
"It is not just the treatment of those who attacked or killed police officers that concerns us.

"It is the hundreds of hours of preparation and investigative work by officers in a range of other cases that is being traded away in sleazy backroom deals.
Police cars will also fly blue ribbons in support of the campaign.

 

[thanksforallthefish]

Police want end to plea bargaining | The Australian
POLICE prosecutors are threatening bans on court work for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in a bid to end plea bargaining, which they say favours criminals rather than victims.
The campaign, backed by the NSW Police Association, aims to force a review of the practice by NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos, News Ltd reports today.
The campaign will start today with a series of workplace meetings held at stations across NSW.
Under the campaign, police prosecutors could refuse to refer less serious indictable offences to the DPP.
As a last resort, the association will also direct police prosecutors to stop appearing in pre-trial court mentions on behalf of the DPP.
NSW Police Association president Bob Pritchard said deals were being made which favoured criminals, not victims.
"SW Police officers are demanding a full review of the plea bargaining system with a view to fundamental reform to end the culture of backroom deals between lawyers at the expense of victims and their families, he told News Ltd.
"It is not just the treatment of those who attacked or killed police officers that concerns us.

"It is the hundreds of hours of preparation and investigative work by officers in a range of other cases that is being traded away in sleazy backroom deals.
Police cars will also fly blue ribbons in support of the campaign.

That is a different state

 

[alohagal]

That is a different state

So, the other states are immune from this, then?

 

[ItsBruce]

I'm a bit confused by the prior post. I do not understand the cast of characters. Who and what are police prosecutors? Who and what is the DPP?

FWIW, for many years I was a staunch opponent of plea bargains. I still don't like it when it turns out to be a bargain for the crook. However, the reality is that if this tool is removed from the prosecutor's toolbox, there will be several very undesirable results.

First, more cases will go to trial. This will mean that the backlog of cases will increase as will the time to get a case to trial. I do not know about Australia, but in the U.S. the right to a speedy trial is a Constitutional level right. If the prosecutor cannot get a case to trial within the statutory time (and the defendant does not waive a speedy trial), the case must be dismissed. Defendants will find a way to abuse the system and get meritorious cases dismissed.

Second, if prosecutors cannot accept a plea to a crime that is less than what they have charged, they will be less likely to charge high. Oddly, this may actually be beneficial in that it will restrict abusive charging which is sometimes done to intimidate a defendant into agreeing to plead guilty to what the charge legitimately ought to be.

 

[livinoz]

So, the other states are immune from this then?

Yes, each state has it's own Jurisdiction.

This was in the Brisbane Times this afternoon about 15 minutes ago. I can't comment as to its veracity:

Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions has defended a decision to drop a murder charge against convicted honeymoon dive killer Gabe Watson, insisting Crown lawyers had little chance of proving he deliberately drowned his bride of 11 days.

Christina "Tina" Watson, 26, died while scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef in October 2003 after her air supply became cut off 15 metres below the surface.

An inquest found reasonable grounds to charge Watson, 32, with murder, but Crown prosecutors on Friday accepted his guilty plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter after he argued he had panicked and failed to assist Tina when she became distressed in the water.

The decision, which resulted in a 12 month minimum jail term for Watson, has sparked widespread anger and calls for an appeal by Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick.

Today, Queensland's most senior prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan SC, stood by the actions of his department in accepting the lesser charge.

He said the chances of securing a conviction for murder had been slim.

"The decision to accept Mr Watson's plea of guilty to manslaughter was made after a careful and thorough examination of the admissible evidence, and was not taken lightly," Mr Moynihan said.

"Given the complex circumstantial nature of the case, Mr Watson's admission that he breached his duty to render assistance to his wife ultimately meant there was no reasonable prospect of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of murder."

Authorities in Watson's home state of Alabama, in the US, have revealed plans to charge Watson with murder upon his release from a Queensland jail next year.

Chief of the Alabama attorney-general's violent crime office, Don Valeska, told The Birmingham News the department believed Watson may have plotted to murder Tina before leaving the US for the couple's Australian honeymoon.

Mr Dick said today he was considering appealing Watson's lenient jail term, but said he would not be rushed.

 

[livinoz]

I'm a bit confused by the prior post. I do not understand the cast of characters. Who and what are police prosecutors? Who and what is the DPP?

FWIW, for many years I was a staunch opponent of plea bargains. I still don't like it when it turns out to be a bargain for the crook. However, the reality is that if this tool is removed from the prosecutor's toolbox, there will be several very undesirable results.

First, more cases will go to trial. This will mean that the backlog of cases will increase as will the time to get a case to trial. I do not know about Australia, but in the U.S. the right to a speedy trial is a Constitutional level right. If the prosecutor cannot get a case to trial within the statutory time (and the defendant does not waive a speedy trial), the case must be dismissed. Defendants will find a way to abuse the system and get meritorious cases dismissed.

Second, if prosecutors cannot accept a plea to a crime that is less than what they have charged, they will be less likely to charge high. Oddly, this may actually be beneficial in that it will restrict abusive charging which is sometimes done to intimidate a defendant into agreeing to plead guilty to what the charge legitimately ought to be.

That post has got nothing to do with this case as it's in a different state.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions acts on the community's behalf to prosecute people charged with serious criminal offences in Queensland.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory officer, which means the position is created under law to be separate from the government. The independence of the director and their office ensures that criminal prosecutions are free from any improper influence or interference.



A police prosecutor is a lawyer acting on behalf of the police for the prosecution.

 

[alohagal]

Thanks Livinoz.
There you have it. The prosecutors are saying outright, they did not have enough evidence to prove murder, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[thanksforallthefish]

Thanks Livinoz.
There you have it. The prosecutors are saying outright, they did not have enough evidence to prove murder, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well seriously what were you expecting??