Just looking at stuff and the article (Stephen Dudley's father erupts at judge in court) about the death of the school kid during an assault. The other kid who assaulted him has been discharged without conviction. The thought process behind that is the judge stated she must ignore the fact he died due to the pre-existing, undiagnosed heart condition called cardiac sarcoidosis.
What this says to me is that the heart condition was the cause of his death, and that the assault just happened to be happening at the same time his cardiac arrythmia occurred. I can understand that he was not going to be found guilty of manslaughter (although others have). It sucks that any other kid hit probably would not have died, however the risk of hitting anyone is that they will die. So when somebody does die from your senseless thuggery I think you should be convicted not discharged.
Its not the first case my eyebrows have raised to, the last being the Maori Kings son discharged without conviction for numerous offenses, not just a single silly mistake. I have also seen other drink offenses discharged without conviction because the job they wanted wouldnt accept a conviction, so what!?
I just wonder if common sense isnt prevailing!