'Honourable man' faces 9 months' jail

By GREGG WYCHERLEY

When Rex Law killed his wife of 54 years, honouring a pact to end suffering brought on by Alzheimer's disease, he fully expected to end his own days in prison.

But yesterday the 77-year-old Thames man was sentenced to only 18 months' imprisonment, the first person to escape a life sentence for murder under new sentencing guidelines.

He sat impassively as the High Court at Hamilton heard how he hit his wife, Olga, with a mallet and then smothered her with a pillow at their house in Thames.

Since killing his wife in March, Law has never attempted to deny what he did, saying he expected to be sent to prison to discourage others from emulating him.

Justice Tony Randerson's decision sets a benchmark for the new Sentencing Act, which came into effect last month, which allows judges to impose lesser sentences where life imprisonment would be "manifestly unjust".

As he was led away by guards, Law expressed his approval of Justice Randerson's decision.

"He did a good job of that."

Outside court, defence lawyer David Bates said Law was an honourable man and would not be applying for home detention, despite being granted leave to do so.

He will be eligible for release after serving half of the sentence.

A minimum of half the sentence must be served for any term under 24 months.

Earlier, Crown prosecutor Ross Douch had said there was no evidence of any death pact and called for a life sentence to reflect society's abhorrence of murder and to protect the sanctity of life.

He said Law had tried to kill himself and his wife two weeks before the murder, by giving her sleeping pills, then opening a gas cylinder in the couple's bedroom while they slept.

While this attempt had been unsuccessful, it indicated a degree of premeditation, exacerbated by the "arrogance" of the prisoner in deciding that his wife should die.

It was impossible for Law to determine the true extent of his wife's suffering and there were other options he could have pursued rather than "a subjective decision that it was best for her to die".

But Mr Bates asked Justice Randerson to order his client to come up for sentencing if called upon rather than imposing a sentence of imprisonment.

He said Law had acted out of compassion, and the loss of his wife was a greater punishment than any that a court could impose.

Law could have defended the murder charge before a jury on the ground of provocation, but he chose to plead guilty to avoid any inconvenience.

Mr Bates said that under the new act, judges would be required to set new sentencing benchmarks for murder in cases where life imprisonment was too harsh.

"Can the merciful artistry of the court paint in sufficiently bold strokes a portrait of non-custodial justice illustrating sanctity of life?

"Has the time come?"

Although Justice Randerson agreed that there was a strong argument in favour of compassion, he said prison was still necessary.

The taking of a human life was not permitted, "even for the highest and best motives".

"The court would be sending the wrong message to the community if it were prepared to allow the deliberate killing of someone suffering from such a disease or other affliction to go unpenalised."

The prisoner's son, John Law, said outside court that his father had no qualms about what he had done, and was ready to face his punishment.

"It's probably a bit less than he expected, really.

"He's standing up all right ... All of us have stuck together and helped each other."

The president of the Criminal Bar Association, Geoff Wells, said the new act gave judges greater sentencing flexibility at both ends of the spectrum.

Longer minimum non-parole periods for the worst types of murder could be balanced, when required, by lesser sentences for murder. "The act has now given the court power to give leniency where it is warranted.

"That never existed for murder before; everybody just got the same life sentence."

Another bonus was that some defendants might be more inclined to plead guilty to murder because a life sentence was no longer inevitable, thereby sparing the need for an expensive jury trial.

A Corrections Department spokeswoman said the Public Prisons Service was responsible for deciding which jail Law would be sent to.

Law would be assessed before being sent to prison, and any special conditions related to his age or health would be catered for.