Someone was asking about differences between murder and manslaughter trials and the consequences. A manslaughter charge is usually chosen where there is strong evidence that the accused caused the other person's death but there is not enough admissible evidence to ensure good prospects of success. There are basically two forms of murder recognised in Qld.
The first is where the accused intended to inflcit serious or fatal injuries on some other person, and as a result of that intention somebody in fact died. That's the usual form you see reported, whete the accused set out to attack someone. That's provided for in s302(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The other form of murder is where the accused was involved in carrying out some other sort of crime, such as a burglary, rape or armed robbery and while doing that they do something which causes another person's death. They might, for example, be carrying out a servo robbery and fire a warning shot which ricochets off a wall and hits the attendant in the head, killing him. You can find that in s.302(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Another example could be an assailant who drugs a woman to overcome resistance so that he can rape her, and she dies as a result of the drug (by interacting with a prescription she is taking say). In that latter situation he didn't intend any serious injury but he was committing a crime (rape) did something dangerous and as a result she died.
Lots of different scenarios posters have suggested on the forum could ground any of the above charges.
Sometimes the DPP will negotiate with the defence for a plea of guilty to manslaughter in exchange for not pursuing the murder charge. Even if a murder trial goes ahead the accused can be acquitted of the murder but convicted of manslaughter by the jury, after the judge sums up for them.
Murder is the more serious charge, but manslaughter can actually result in as many years behind bars. The Corrective Services Act says that a prisoner convicted of murder is eligible to apply for parole after serving 15 years of their 'mandatory' life sentence. Many such people do in fact get parole at that time.
There is a maximum (non mandatory) sentence of life imprisonment for manslaughter. But, crucially, it is classified as a Serious Violent Offence in the Penalties and Sentences Act, which means that the prisoner must serve at least 80% of their sentence or 15 years before being eligible to apply for parole (whichever is the shorter). So a 20 year sentence for manslaughter has almost the same effect. The court can also specify a later parole eligibility date.
Sentences for non murder offences that severe are rare, but not unheard of. It's also possible for the court to impose an indefinite sentence in which the offender has no parole eligibility date, but is assessed by a tribunal as to the risk they pose to the community at various stages. We have a few such prisoners in Qld. They are usually violent, serial rapists.
Many manslaughter convictions grounded in DV contexts seem to attract a maximum of about 10 years. If that were the sentence, the offender would be eligible to apply for parole after 8 years, with the serious violent offender declaration. It would be tempting to think that where a person is also convicted of additional offences arising from the same events, such as interfering with a corpse etc, that a conviction for those offences would increase the overall sentence. But virtually all prosecutions which result in convictions for multiple offences lead to sentences which are served concurrently, meaning that the offender serves the time for the most serious offence and is deemed to be also serving the other sentences at the same time.
