On the 4th of July 2014 the Supreme Court’s sentence that was imposed for Loveridge’s sentence on the 8th of November 2013 was overturned. The outcome was ruled and Loveridge would be trialled and punished for all his crimes separately on the night of the 7th of July 2012. For the manslaughter of Thomas Kelly, Loveridge received 10 years and 6 months imprisonment. For the occasioning actual bodily harm upon Marco Compagnoni he received 22 months. For the assaults of Marco Serrao, Rhyse Saliba and Aden Gazi he collectively received a 33 months imprisonment. In total the earliest that Loveridge would be eligible for parole would be on the 18th of November 2022. Loveridge’s final sentence still received a reduction due to him pealing guilty.
Several factors were considered under the Crimes Sentencing Act 1999 which affected the outcome of Loveridge’s sentencing decision. Aggravating factors were calculated within the trial. Loveridge had a prior criminal record from a young age, as well as just being out for good behaviour on a summary offence for an alcohol fuelled offence of violence just one month earlier than the incident of the 7th of July 2012. This highlights that he had not learnt from his previous actions, other factors such as Loveridge committing not one but several unprovoked assaults that nights resulting in injuries and death. These aggressive factors were considered and would have increased his criminal accountability therefore concluding him having additional time added to his severe punishment.
Justifying factors were also considered when sentencing Loveridge. As Loveridge had showed authentic actions of remorse as he had told a psychologist “it’s very hard someone had died you know”, this shines a light for Loveridge showing he is sincere and that he could be eligible for rehabilitation and reform back into society. This factor would have been considered and possibly a reason why Loveridge’s sentence had been a lesser punishment than expected. As the charge was for manslaughter and ‘manslaughter’ does cover a large spectrum, other cases where the victims sustained an unintended head injury after falling to the ground were also investigated. Such cases like R v Castle, R v O’Hare, and R v Maclurcan were model and a judicial guideline for how this case should be approached. An increasing problem in society is the occurrence of alcohol fuelled violence and such would have been considered within Loveridge’s case as a strong sentence needed to be made to deter and show society that this kind of crime is not socially or legally acceptable.
In Loveridge’s case the law wasn’t balanced between the rights of victims, offenders and society to a reasonable degree as all parties were let down by the law to some extent. Firstly, the consequences brought down on Loveridge from the original sentence shows the unreliability in protecting the rights of the victims especially the deceased. The law had let down Thomas Kelly and his family, as the original sentence meant that Loveridge could be out of jail for only serving 4 years for taking a life. The Kelly family stated that the sentence was in the favour of the accused stating that Thomas’s life was ‘meaningless’ and the sentence was a ‘joke’. Due to this outcry and from the media this led the case being appealed by the DPP (Department of Public Prosecutions). This change was necessary due to the lack of severity in punishment not only from the victim’s side but for deterring future offenders. The fact that this case was appealed shows that the legal system is responsive to meeting society’s needs however it raises the notion why should the public have to cause a ‘outcry’ for justice to be achieved for the victims.