Man Kills Boy In Hit-And-Run, Walks From Court

We want you to imagine a horrible crime. A man, almost certainly under the influence of drugs, hits a boy riding his bike, and kills him.

Instead to stopping at the scene, the man runs. Strangers and witnesses stop to help the boy, knocked unconscious by the car. But not the man who struck him. Instead, the man races back to his home, and parks his car in order the hide the damage of the boy’s body. The boy sustains serious injuries, and dies in hospital later the same day. He is just nine years old.

Now, imagine that, despite the overwhelming case against the driver of the vehicle, and the fact that he was on drugs prior to the accident and sought to hide this from police, that his lawyers argue he is a young man with a good record. They further argue that the driver, a 23-year-old, had done a great many things to turn his life around, felt disgusted that he didn’t stop, and that he felt remorseful of the whole affair. Imagine then that, despite the Magistrate himself admitting there was an ‘overwhelming case’ against the driver and he would face ‘certain prison time’, the driver was sentenced to just 18-months suspended sentence, with 6-months of home detention.

That’s right. The price of that little boy’s life was just 6-months in home detention and 18-months of probation.

So What If This Was True?

In fact, though you might be surprised, it is true. These very events happened in Darwin, and continue to unfold as these words are typed. A young boy, nine-years-old with a passion for family and fishing, was run down as he rode his bicycle around his neighbourhood. His name was Jack Sultan-Page, and without playing the card of emotion, he had his entire life ahead of him.

The man who struck him was Matthew Alexander, aged 23. He claimed that he panicked, and fled the scene, conveniently depriving police of the chance to test him for drugs that might have caused Jack’s death. He also parked his car in such a way that the damage to it was hidden to police, and not discovered until 24-hours later, during a neighbourhood search. He admitted to all of these things, yet his lawyers continued to assert that Alexander was a good person, a young man with his entire life ahead of him. You can’t help but think, surely the same can be said for Jack?

Still, the true injustice came during trial, when the courts decided to separate the two crimes, trying him for fleeing the scene, and for drug involvement, but irrespective of each other. This is despite the fact that the offences occurred on the same day, and despite the fact that Alexander had gone out of his way to avoid being drug tested following the hit and run.

So, although a little boy will never grow up, although a family is broken into pieces, although everyone is mad as hell, Alexander will sit around his house for six months, and pay a $2,000 fine. He won’t even lose his license. In fact, once that 18-month suspended sentence is up, he’ll just go on with his life, totally ignoring the life that he removed from this world.

A Hidden Prejudice

Nothing hurts us more than to see how badly Jack’s family have been treated through the whole affair. When Jack’s mother spoke up in court, horrified that the man who killed her son, and obvious flight risk, was trying to get bail, the judge silenced her harshly. He told her she would be arrested, that the court was not some pub where people could yell at each other. Now, why would he say that? Why is a pub the first thing that came to mind?

Oh, did we not mention that Jack was a little Indigenous boy? Others have drawn attention to it, although we hope it had no standing on the case. The fact that the victim was Aboriginal and the perpetrator was not surely can’t have had an effect on his sentencing. Of course, Aboriginal people are almost 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal people. And indeed within the last few years in Darwin Aboriginal people have been jailed for not paying fines on time, for driving under the influence of only alcohol, and for public disturbances, none of which have resulted in the death of a nine-year-old boy.

But, despite the Northern Territory Attorney General saying he has full faith in the system, we can’t help but wonder what the outcome would have been if an Aboriginal man, almost certainly under the influence of drugs, struck and killed an non-Indigenous child before fleeing the scene. Would his sentence have been equally light?

Who Is The Victim Again?

Reading over the media coverage, it’s easy to get a little confused about just who the victims are here. Over and over again, papers assert that Matthew Alexander is committed to his drug rehabilitation, was given a glowing review by his rehab clinic, and had done all that he could to turn his life around.

What about Jack Sultan-Page and his family?

Jack loved to go fishing with his dad, and camping with his cousins and uncles. He loved his mum and like to pick flowers to bring home to her. His little brother idolised him, and they spent their days playing Xbox and kick balls in the garden. He had a whole troop of mates, who loved to laugh and sing with the music turned up. He had a whole life, and now he doesn’t.

Yet oddly, all we’re hearing about is Matthew Alexander. We’ve heard about how he turned his life around, but as far as we can see it, he had many opportunities to make different choices. Jack didn’t. Matthew chose to take drugs that day, to get into the car, and to drive. He knew that by doing so he would be breaking the law, that he would be driving under the influence. It seems crazy that Magistrate who sentenced him said ‘the drugs charges were not responsible for the death of Jack Sultan-Page, although they related to the same day as the hit-and-run death’. He chose to run away, and hide his crime when he ran Jack over. Jack Sultan-Page made none of these decisions, but he’s still the one who paid for them.

Do you think the sentence was too light?

Photo Credit Feature Image: newmatilda.com 

Photo Credit: www.abc.net.au

Photo Credit: www.ntnews.com.au