The Dunedin 51-year-old died a senseless and pointless death in March 2011, after being victim of what at the time was called a "one-punch attack".
Call it that, a "coward’s punch" or a "king hit", but they all too often, all too sadly have the same conclusion as Steve Radnoty’s case.
There are already several offences in the Crimes Act which could cover such a situation: murder, manslaughter, assault ... but many, including Steve Radnoty’s family felt that there was nothing on the statute books which covered the situation where an innocent victim was struck, unknowingly, from behind.
Such blows which were not lethal had considerable potential to cause lasting brain damage
The Radnoty family certainly felt more needed to be done, and in subsequent years have given their support to awareness campaigns and law reform endeavours.
Whether the campaigns had any effect is an intangible and unmeasurable thing: it can only be hoped so.
But what we do know is that successive governments — some of which made campaign pledges to introduce a specific "coward punch" law — failed to do so.
That is about to change with the announcement yesterday that the government intends to take on Paulo Garcia’s coward punches member’s Bill as government business.
It will almost certainly pass. Such legislation is already part of the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement, and it seems highly unlikely that Act New Zealand — which likes to promote its tough on crime credentials — would demur from such a law change.
Add to that the legislation is likely to be before the House in the run-up to the next election, and that would make it a difficult law change to oppose.
That said, Parliament’s drafting staff, and after them the justice select committee, are going to have their work cut out teasing their way through the nuances of the law of assault.
The proposed law change would impose a maximum of eight years’ imprisonment for a single-punch attack where the offender intended to cause injury, or acted with reckless disregard for safety.
Should such a punch result in death that could amount to culpable homicide, bringing with it a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
What lawyers and judges will need to establish, through case law, will be exactly what sort of attacks will warrant the higher tariff, a subjective exercise fraught with hazards and with fertile grounds for appeal.
It is these difficulties which may well have stymied such a law change until now. It may well be that they prove to be insurmountable again.
But these sorts of crimes horrify the general public. They are often random, and — not that there is anything fair about them — they run counter to people’s sense that if you are going to come under attack that you should be able to defend yourself.
Whether stiffer penalties are actually a disincentive to commit crimes is another argument entirely, but few will be dismayed that the government is taking action on this front.
How the other half lives
In the same week that the seemingly never-ending Jeff Bezos-Lauren Sanchez nuptials took place, despite the many complaints of Venice residents, comes news that Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams have secured consent to build a helipad at their estimated $24 million Westmere property.
These are not the problems of everyday folk, but everyday folk have never ceased to be fascinated by the circuses of the rich and famous.
We are seldom going to be exercised about clearing out a populated city (and tourist hot spot) for a grand party, or where to park our helicopter of an evening.
But such extravagances have, from time immemorial, captured people’s imaginations. One can only hope the fools who persist in their folly will become wise.
