Teenager Receives 10-Year Sentence for Manslaughter of Pregnant Couple
On 26 January 2021 a young couple were walking their two dogs in Alexandra Hills, east of Brisbane. They were Katherine Leadbetter, 31, and Matthew Field, 37. Ms Leadbetter was pregnant with the young couple’s first child. At approximately 5.30pm, while they were at the corner of Vienna and Finucane Roads it is alleged that a 17 year old male, who can’t be named because he is considered a juvenile under Queensland law, ran a red light in a stolen 4 wheel drive, crashed into an oncoming truck and then rolled onto Ms Leadbetter and Mr Field, killing them both.
It’s alleged that the teenager was ‘adversely affected by an intoxicating substance’, meaning that his ability to drive was impaired as a result of ingesting alcohol, drugs or both. Police say that he then fled the scene and stole a set of keys from a home and was trying to start the car in the garage when he was approached by the owner and fled again. The owner followed him to Chelsea Crescent, where he was arrested by police.
The teenager was charged with, amongst other charges, two counts of murder. Police then sought legal advice as to whether a third charge of murder could be laid, relating to the unborn baby, but ultimately decided not to.
Definition of ‘murder’ under Queensland law
Historically, the critical element that distinguished the offence of murder from the lesser offence of manslaughter was the element of intent – meaning an actual intention to kill. An example of the difference could often be seen in cases involving drunken fight – person X punching person Y, causing Y to fall onto the ground and hit their head, ultimately leading to their death due to bleeding on the brain or some other injury. In such a situation, X would be charged with murder but the charge would almost always be reduced to the lesser charge of manslaughter because it is often difficult to prove that X, in punching Y, intended to actually kill Y.
‘Murder’ redefined in 2019
However, a very significant and controversial change was made by the State Parliament on 1 May 2019. The definition of murder, as specified under the law, is as follows:
A person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances:
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;
(aa) if death is caused by an act done, or omission made, with reckless indifference to human life;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;
(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);
(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;
Section (aa) above, which is the new provision included in 2019, means that a charge of murder can be satisfied in situations where there was no intention to kill – but rather that an act was made with ‘reckless indifference’ to human life.
The sentence proceedings
On 8 June 2022 the teenager who killed the couple in Alexandra Hills was sentenced before the Supreme Court to the counts of manslaughter, after the prosecution agreed to discontinue the original murder counts. In doing so, there was no doubt lengthy discussions between the defence and the prosecution about whether or not section (aa) – the reckless indifference to human life provision referred to above – was satisfied.
The teenager, now 18 but 17 years old at the time of the offending, was sentenced as a juvenile. As with most jurisdictions, and recognising that juveniles are often not yet fully developed and therefore need to be given special leniency, the sentencing regime in Queensland is different for juveniles. A major difference is that a sentencing judge is not able to impose a sentence of greater than 10 years imprisonment unless they are satisfied that the offending was ‘particularly heinous’. I don’t know of the precise translation of the word ‘heinous’ in the Vietnamese language, but the closest would be ‘vicious’ or ‘abhorrent’ in nature.
The teenager was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, to be released after serving 6 years, taking into account his troubled upbringing, age, problems with substance and demonstrated remorse.
This sentence has attracted widespread condemnation by the community, and the Attorney-General has agreed. Approximately one week after the sentence was passed the Attorney-General has lodged an appeal of the sentence, calling it ‘manifestly inadequate’. The appeal will be heard at a future date and once the appeal has been heard we will analyse the findings and the views of the Court of Appeal – Queensland’s highest court.
If you’re needing assistance with legal matters or determining your legal rights, Cridland & Hua are the specialists amongst Brisbane Law Firms, practising exclusively in criminal and quasi-criminal law. Contact us today.
