Accused American "honeymoon scuba" killer pleads guilty to manslaughter

[Cunctator]

Interesting developments in the “honeymoon dive murder” case: previous thread.

The accused returned voluntarily to Queensland. This morning the Crown accepted his guilty plea to a lesser charge of manslaughter.

[lavenderviolet]

Hm. I wonder how much time he’ll wind up serving for this.

[Ale]

I have to say that my knuckle dragging alter ego would like to see this guy waterboarded a few times so he’ll go through a fraction of the terror and pain that poor woman had to suffer…
But I’d be cool with him rotting in jail for the rest of his miserable existence.

[lavenderviolet]

Yeah, I think this guy must be very cold-blooded to be able to do that to his wife. Unfortunately I’d be very surprised if he winds up getting what he deserves with “manslaughter”.

[Cunctator]

@lavenderviolet

Hm. I wonder how much time he’ll wind up serving for this.

Not very much it appears. The prosecutor sought a five year term, with a minimum of eighteen months. The judge handed down a sentence of four and a half years, to be suspended after twelve months. So he’ll be in gaol for just one year, before being deported bank to the USA: link

[lavenderviolet]

Only a year in prison? That’s even worse than I was expecting. If I were one of her relatives I’d probably be furious that her life is not considered worth any more than that.

[alphaboi867]

Is the Crown allowed to appeal the sentence in Queensland?

[Kyla]

Wait, what? This guy let his wife drown and gets one year in prison? I don’t think of myself as a very vengeance-y kind of person, but this strikes me as outrageous.

[Cunctator]

@alphaboi867

Is the Crown allowed to appeal the sentence in Queensland?

The Queensland Attorney-General is considering an appeal against the leniency of the sentence.

The Alabama Attorney-General is getting in on the act too.

[enipla]

@Kyla

Wait, what? This guy let his wife drown and gets one year in prison? I don’t think of myself as a very vengeance-y kind of person, but this strikes me as outrageous.

I thought that he turned off her air. And then let her drown. A deliberate act.

[Northern_Piper]

That’s what the Coroner concluded, but Coroners don’t typically operate on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused appears to have argued that he saw her in trouble and panicked. Since the only two who know what happened were the accused and the deceased, there’s a major evidential issue. I’m assuming that’s why the Crown agreed to take the plea to manslaughter.

[Zebra]

What is the definition of manslaughter by Australian rules?

[lavenderviolet]

Even if the coroner’s findings alone were not enough, I’d think that the testimony from her family that the husband had tried to get her to make him the sole beneficiary of her life insurance, that he left her to “go get help” even though he was trained in dive rescue himself, and also test results that showed her diving equipment was working would be enough to build a case for murder.
I don’t think that one year in jail is really much better than if he had been tried for murder then found not guilty.

[Cunctator]

@Northern_Piper

That’s what the Coroner concluded, but Coroners don’t typically operate on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused appears to have argued that he saw her in trouble and panicked. Since the only two who know what happened were the accused and the deceased, there’s a major evidential issue. I’m assuming that’s why the Crown agreed to take the plea to manslaughter.

I don’t think that’s been publicly stated, but it would be my guess too.

[Cunctator]

@Zebra

What is the definition of manslaughter by Australian rules?

The relevant legislation is the *Criminal Code Act *1899 (Qld). It describes two types of unlawful killing:

300 **Unlawful homicide **
Any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of a crime, which is called murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances of the case.

Then it goes on to define murder, basically in terms of means and intent:

302 **Definition of murder **(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say–

(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;
(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;
is guilty of murder.

(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

Finally it defines any unlawful killing that is **not **murder as manslaughter:

303 **Definition of manslaughter **A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter.

[Cunctator]

@Northern_Piper

Since the only two who know what happened were the accused and the deceased, there’s a major evidential issue. I’m assuming that’s why the Crown agreed to take the plea to manslaughter.

The DPP, Tony Moynihan, has now confirmed this:

Mr Moynihan said that “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”.

[Northern_Piper]

Tony Moynihan S.C. today said …

is S.C. the Queensland / Australian equivalent of Q.C., Cunctator?

[Northern_Piper]

@lavenderviolet

Even if the coroner’s findings alone were not enough, I’d think that the testimony from her family that the husband had tried to get her to make him the sole beneficiary of her life insurance, that he left her to “go get help” even though he was trained in dive rescue himself, and also test results that showed her diving equipment was working would be enough to build a case for murder.

Strikes me as all pretty circumstantial:

• spouses often make each other the beneficiaries of their life insurance policies;

• he apparently says that he panicked;

• even if it was functioning, it’s possible that the deceased or the accused accidentally turned it off.

I don’t think that one year in jail is really much better than if he had been tried for murder then found not guilty.

A point of debate, of course, but criminal records have a habit of following one around. Outright acquittal means no record. I agree that it seems low; I’ll be curious to see if the Crown does appeal and if so, what happens.

[Princhester]

@Northern_Piper

is S.C. the Queensland / Australian equivalent of Q.C., Cunctator?

It has replaced QC. It stands for “Senior Counsel”.

[Cunctator]

@Northern_Piper

is S.C. the Queensland / Australian equivalent of Q.C., Cunctator?

As **Princhester **notes, SC has replaced QC in most jurisdictions. However those barristers who were originally granted the QC title are allowed to retain it. It retains a certain cachet.