Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Newcastle Herald
Newcastle Herald
National
SAM RIGNEY

Not self-defence, but a cause of death

ACQUITTED: Benjamin Batterham outside Newcastle courthouse after he was found not guilty of murder on Wednesday. Picture: Marina Neil

WHEN it all started, more than three-and-a-half years ago with a break-in, a chase and a struggle, the case of R v Benjamin Batterham was widely anticipated to be a referendum on self-defence.

It was, if you listened to those ill-informed about the facts, going to be a case about castle doctrine and how far someone can go to defend their home, their family and themselves. A petition circulated online calling for the Attorney General to "RELEASE Benjamin Batterham from custody WITH NO CHARGES NOW!" garnered more than 113,000 signatures before it closed.

"Homeowners should be able to defend their families from criminals who break into their homes - and Benjamin should be released now," the petition urged.

But the trial of Benjamin Batterham was never about self-defence.

In fact, the legal defence hardly rated a mention during the two-week trial.

Mr Batterham was entitled to chase and restrain Mr Slater in an effort to effect a citizen's arrest, but the case was not about how far one can go when defending their property or themselves.

It was about an intruder who broke into a house at 3am and then fled when he was discovered.

And it was about the sprint and a subsequent struggle to make a citizen's arrest and how that may have combined with the health conditions that Mr Slater had when he broke in the house - the pre-existing heart disease and obesity - and the large dose of methamphetamine he ingested in the hours before.

"There was much talk when Mr Batterham was first arrested by interested people who came up with concepts like "a man's home is his castle, he has the right to do what he wants when someone breaks into his home"," Mr Terracini told the jury during his closing address. "If you read that material it is all nonsense."

Justice Desmond Fagan, after the jury had delivered their not guilty verdict, noted that while the case had focused on the actions of Mr Batterham, that concentration of public attention had distracted from a "matter of real importance"; the dangerously adverse effects of chronic ice use.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.