Case Study Of Robert Farquhanson: Analysis Of Homicide And Criminal Law

Nature of Homicide and Criminal Law

Discuss about the Case Study of Robert Farquhanson.

The case is based on a particular chapter of the criminal law. Homicide is a reflection of criminal mentality that causes death of another. The nature of the offence is depending on the perspective of death (Ellis & McGovern, 2016). There are certain elements of the criminal act. However, one of them attracts the provision of this case. The element is if any person held liable for the death of another by way of accident where there is an intention exists, that will be under the provision of the homicide act (Finlay & Kirchengast, 2015). These types of offences are cognizance in nature. They are directly harming the society. In the case of Robert Farquharson, a similar kind of story has been depicted that rock the Australian society as well as the legislation of Australia. it is a story of a father who was alleged to kill his three sons brutally and got punished by the Federal Court of Australia. The murder was took place in the year 2005 just after the celebration of Father’s Day. The most shocking part of the case was that he loved his children and had celebrated the ceremony actively. However, still there is a question exists whether Robert is the actual murderer or not (Amato, 2017).

The case of Robert Farquharson had opened a new era in the area of homicide. There are certain essentials regarding the case that can be categorised as follows:

The matter of the said case is quite entangled in nature. There are certain evidences that were went against Robert. There are some evidences, on the other hand that were supported the activity or testimony of Robert and made a confusion regarding the same. the first problem is there is no direct evidence in this case (Horan & Goodman-Delahunty, 2014). All the evidences are based on the testimonies of the accused and the witnesses. Even, there is no eyewitness here. The prime witness in this case was Greg King. During the cross examination, he told to the court that he heard from Robert by saying to made his wife suffer. The relevant fact regarding this matter was that Robert and his wife resided separately. It was also stated that Robert was liable for the separation to some extent. There are certain others witnesses who also delivered their contentions against Robert (Joseph, 2016).

Allegations against Robert Farquhanson

The children were killed by a fatal accident that was met by Robert while returning to home. The car was rammed a fence and fell in a gutter and the car was sink. The children did not found the way to free exit and succumbed to death. The suspicion raised when Robert somehow made it possible to remain himself out of the car (Taylor, 2015). When the police interrogated him, he told that he has suffering from special kinds of bronchiole disease and he got senseless for certain moment. However, there was a question cropped up regarding the issue that how he managed to free himself from the car belt and how he freed himself during the unconscious condition.

Certain evidences are found when the police examined the car. There was no mark that can prove the fact that his car was rammed with the fence. Another point was that the speed limit of the car was not that fast. During that speed, how a car can be rammed with the fence was cropped up.

There were no direct evidence regarding the fact that whether Robert had any hidden revenge for her wife or not (Kenny, 2013). There were certain persons who testified the fact that Robert was somehow disturbed for the separation. It was also contended by his wife Cindy Gambino that Robert wanted to get back her again in his life and remained disturbed for the fact. However, there was no hints in the statement of his wife regarding the killing mentality of Robert. Even when the Court delivered its judgment against Robert, she did not believe the fact that Robert can kill his sons, as he was a loving father. The decision made the whole nation silent and protestation made for Robert.

Many persons took the decision of the court negatively. There were certain reasons behind the fact that Robert is innocent (Kleinhauz, Horowitz & Tobin, 2013). Certain flaws are made in the process of investigation. The testimonies of Greg King were not at all trustworthy as he gave different testimony before the court and before the police. There were certain loopholes arise in this case. The investigation process also hold certain laxity. The decisions of the court were ex parte in nature. There were certain facts that proved that the police tried to make Robert responsible for the murder and passed their buck in this way.

Evidences and Testimonies

Police officers were showed certain carelessness regarding the examination of the car of the accused. There were no proper investigation had been made and the road was not even been examined by the forensic team in an appropriate manner (Little, 2015). As per the investigation officer, Robert was intentionally met the accident and put the car in the gutter and the consequence was detrimental in nature. Though he failed to establish any evidence regarding the same. As per one of the traffic analyst and witness of the case David Axup told that when a car speeding up to a limit of 60 kph, there is a possibility for the car to be turned turtle at any moment. Therefore, the testimony of Davis backed the confession made by Robert regarding the accident.

The police had made serious flaws that they had believed the testimony of Greg King and the fate of Robert was depended on the facts stated by Greg. The problem regarding the testimony was that Greg had made different views in different times (Ojo, & Ozoh, 2016). Therefore, it was not right to convict Robert on the basis of the statements of Greg. He stated during the investigation that he heard Robert to make her wife suffer for the separation and killing the sons can be the outcome of that mentality. Before the court, Greg stated that Robert was disturbed for the separation and was depressed for the facts and it is strange to kill the children, as he loved them a lot. Therefore, the two opinion of Greg were not same. However, unfortunately the court had failed to consider the same.

It was stated by the police that there was no existence regarding the disease that are stated by Robert. The bronchiole problem was rare in nature and there were no evidence that the disease can be cured in the provinces of that state. However, it was stated by Dr. Bartley that Robert is suffering from certain coughing disorder and that disease can be categorised as cough syncope. Cough syncope is one of the rarest syndrome of cough and there is a possibility that the victim of this disease can be become senseless at any moment. Therefore, it can be stated that the Robert’s confession can be right. There was another Doctor who had given different opinion by stating that he had not even heard about the syndrome. Shocking matter happened when the Court had given much priority to the opinion of Dr. Naughton than Dr. Bartley.

Flaws in the Investigative Process

There were certain other witnesses who were examined by the Court authority regarding the case matter but the opinion stated by them held of less importance. Flaws took place regarding the witnesses of the case. According to Michael Hart, one of the friends of Robert that the police or even the court at any point of time did not examined him. He also contended that the mentality of the police proved that they did not want to know the facts of the case. In an interview, Michael told that Robert told his statements to him and not to Greg. Thus, it is total negative to deliver judgment against Robert based on the statements of Greg.

According to Kerri Huntington, the police personnel wanted to make the total accident scene into a murder scene and they had taken the facts into their mind that Robert is the killer and did not even throw light on the other subjects. Another sister of Robert stated that Robert had an ocular problem from his childhood and he had to face serious problem, as he could not see anything in the dark. Money was the main reason behind the separation from his wife and he loved her very much. He was unable to satisfy his wife due to money problem and getting depressed for that. A family friend of Robert stated that Robert loved his wife and children a lot and it is impossible for him to even scratch his children. There was unconditional love in his heart for them.   

The police after the accident Robert did not call the ambulance stated it. Rather he called his wife and narrated the whole incident to her. Police found his criminal mentality regarding the same and as per their view, it is his intention not to call the ambulance. However, the facts was denied by one psychologist. It is common for a father to accept the accident of his children in front of him that happened all of a sudden. In such an incident, they always wanted to share with his spouse in lieu of informing the local ambulance service.

The Australian media had played certain role in the case. Many news channels were conducted interview where they had asked questions to the family members and friends of Robert regarding the issue. Some news analysts were written blogs to support Robert and they were making certain reports in favour of him. Cindy Gambino, wife of Robert had also contended the fact that Robert cannot do such heinous crime and she was strongly opposed the verdict of the court.

Therefore, from the above named facts, it can be stated that the decision of the court was based on certain wrong facts and the jury had failed to consider all the different aspects of the case. The testimonies of the witnesses were quite defective and the court had failed to record the statements of the friends and family of Robert Farquhanson. The statements of the doctor, who examined Robert, had also not taken. Police had concocted different stories to hold him liable for the facts of the case and did not investigate the matter properly. Therefore, it can be stated that the homicidal nature of the case is still in doubt and punishment of Robert is not appropriate

References:

Amato, D. (2017). What Happens if Autopsy Reports are Found Testimonial?: The Next Steps to Ensure the Admissibility of These Critical Documents in Criminal Trials. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 107, 293-293.

Ellis, J., & McGovern, A. (2016). The end of symbiosis? Australia police–media relations in the digital age. Policing and Society, 26(8), 944-962.

Finlay, L., & Kirchengast, T. (2015). Criminal law in Australia. LexisNexis Butterworths.

Horan, J., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014). Challenging the peremptory challenge system in Australia.

Joseph, G. P. (2016). Modern visual evidence. Law Journal Press.

Joseph, S. (2016). Australian Literary Journalism and “Missing Voices” How Helen Garner finally resolves this recurring ethical tension. Journalism Practice, 10(6), 730-743.

Kenny, A. (2013). Intention and Side Effects: the Mens Rea for Murder. Reason, Morality, and Law: The Philosophy of John Finnis, 109.

Kleinhauz, M., Horowitz, I., & Tobin, Y. (2013). The use of hypnosis in police investigation: A preliminary communication. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 17(2-3), 77-80.

Little, J. (2015). ‘Family violence happens to everybody’: gender, mental health and violence in Australian media representations of filicide 2010–2014. Continuum, 29(4), 605-616.

Little, J. (2015). ‘Family violence happens to everybody’: gender, mental health and violence in Australian media representations of filicide 2010–2014. Continuum, 29(4), 605-616.

Milroy, C. M., & Ranson, D. L. (2014). Homicide trends in the state of Victoria, Australia. The American journal of forensic medicine and pathology, 18(3), 285-289.

Ojo, O. T., & Ozoh, O. (2016). Cough Syncope, An Unusual Presentation Of Asthma In Adults. In B45. OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE: INTERESTING CASES (pp. A3587-A3587). American Thoracic Society.

Ramirez, R., & Lasam, G. (2017). Cough induced syncope: A hint to cardiac tamponade diagnosis. World journal of cardiology, 9(5), 466.

Taylor, N. (2015). This House of Grief: The Story of a Murder Trial. Antipodes, 29(2), 498