Australia Divided After Homeowner Charged With Murder Of Alleged Intruder

A New South Wales man is in prison today after he was charged with murdering another man who allegedly broke into his house.

Ben Batterham, aged 33, did not apply for bail when he faced court this morning.

The case has attracted a large amount of attention in Australia, splitting popular opinion about what the rights of homeowners are in a break-and-enter or self-defence situation. While the full details of the case have not yet been released, here is what we know so far.

The Incident

According to police, father-of-one Ben Batterham allegedly found 34-year-old Richard Slater-Dickson standing in the doorway of his young daughter’s bedroom at around 3:30 on Saturday morning after Slater-Dickson apparently broke into the house. A fight broke out between Mr Batterham, an unnamed friend of Mr Batterham and Mr Slater-Dickson.

At some point during this fight, it is alleged that Mr Batterham put Mr Slater-Dickson in a choke hold in order to detain him until police arrived. When police arrived, they found Mr Slater-Dickson was unconscious and when he arrived at the John Hunter Hospital he was diagnosed as having a broken neck, and being oxygen starved. He remained in hospital in a critical condition until about 11:30am on Sunday morning, when his family opted to turn off his life support.

Prior to Mr Slater-Dickson’s death, Ben Batterham had been charged with grievous bodily harm, but this charge was later upgraded to murder. The upgrade caused outrage Australia-wide, with many claiming that it was clear Mr Batterham was only defending his home and his family. Several online petitions have been started demanding that Mr Batterham’s charges be dropped, with thousands of people signing in support.

The Complicated Unknowns

There are several aspects of this case that make if difficult, at this point at least, to say with certainty what exactly happened at night. Let’s look at a few of these now.

Party At Address: The family of Mr Slater-Dickson claim that the victim was not breaking into the property at all, but rather that he was there to attend a part on the premises. They alleged that he was murdered by Mr Batterham, that he didn’t deserve what happened to him, and that they will be fighting for justice.

Prior Convictions: Despite the claims of Mr Slater-Dickson’s family, the victim was just released from prison in December after serving more than 20 months of a four-year jail term for aggravated break and enter, as well as fraud offences. He was released early following an appeal.

Severity Of Injury: Some questions have been raised by the public and commentators on the nature of Mr Slater-Dickson’s injuries, and the fact that they were severe enough to cause brain-death. As there hasn’t been any confirmation as to what actually happened that night, it’s difficult at this point to say whether Mr Batterham’s response was reasonable under the circumstances.

What Will This Case Mean For Self-Defence?

No law system is without it’s loopholes and imperfections, and Australian law is no different. In terms of self-defence law when it comes to an intruder in your home, the law is a little vague as it’s based on each case objectively.

Legal expert Sam Macedone spoke in more detail about this on the TODAY show, following the story gaining national attention. He said that a person has the right to do whatever they believe to be necessary to protect themselves, as long as the law finds that their response is reasonable given their fear at the time of the invasion. Determining what a ‘reasonable’ response might be isn’t always the easiest thing, but according to Mr Macedone even killing can be considered a reasonable response, under the right circumstances.

“Even if you kill someone in that circumstance and your response is reasonable, given the fear that you have, and the threat that’s coming towards you, you can actually do that.”

“The trick here is that it’s got to be a reasonable response given what you are thinking at the time”¦ the fear that you have.”

However he noted that shooting someone would not be an appropriate response if they attacked you with their bare hands, but that the law would take into account how you were feeling at the time of the attack. For example, even if your response was considered not reasonable, but your fear in that situation was high, than it would likely be a case of manslaughter instead of murder. At the same time, it is difficult to generalise because self-defence cases can differ so greatly, depending on the individuals involved and the specific circumstances.

However, in the case of Mr Batterham, murder is the charge on the cards, so it seems either that the police have already concluded that his response was not reasonable, or that there are other details at play that the public is not aware of.

Mr Batterham was formally refused bail, and will remain in custody to face court on the 25th of May.

What’s your stand about this matter?