As a cultural criminologist, I feel that the public looks to the government to intervene and act when crime or other social problems gets out of hand, in this case it was the uptick of violent youth crime resulting in people ‘king hitting’ or violently striking the back of the head happening close to a decade ago now.
The government of the time introducing laws specifically criminalising this behaviour is what I believe was a way to show them taking action to calm the public but doing so in a
performative lawmaking way, as this new criminal act was already covered by existing laws and was designed to simply calm the public, as these laws were made in response to a growing social issue. However, it must be said that laws, especially criminal ones are responses to imagined, future or actual social problems. Thus, I am not claiming that the government at the time overreacted or made a poor decision; as the law served and continues to serve an important function, in criminalising a dangerous action. It is important to remember the context of these king hit laws; they were made at a time when there were daily reports in the news about people ending up in hospital or dead because they were randomly hit in the back of the head by random assailants.
The point of this article and what I am claiming is that the government introduced a new law at a time when existing laws were adequate in dealing with the problem that already existed. An example of this is the aforementioned manslaughter laws. They were introduced at a time when Victoria was overwhelmed with violent drunken incidents, and the public was likely looking to the government to react and handle the situation.
To better understand what I mean, it is necessary to examine existing manslaughter laws. Interestingly, manslaughter by itself is a common law crime, that has no statutory backing so that parliament cannot determine its elements like a criminal code; rather it is a common law offence that has distinct elements like murder.
The various forms of manslaughter
Manslaughter as a criminal charge is odd, as it is not just the classic one we all think of where someone kills another without meaning to, such as a robbery gone wrong; but this is not the only example of manslaughter.
Negligent manslaughter
This kind of manslaughter is unlikely to have been sufficient to capture the uptick of violent crime, as the kinds of people committing those offences would have been outside the scope of this form of manslaughter.
For the prosecution to be successful they must prove the following elements; that the accused owed the victim a duty of care; the accused breached this duty through criminal negligence; the breach was committed consciously and voluntarily; and finally, the accused’s breach caused the death of the victim.[1]
The uptick of random violent punches was typically occurring to people with no connection to each other, rather it was typically to people on the street at night, often without even interacting before the punch. This would mean that these violent attacks were not caught, as no duty of care was owed, fundamentally failing the first element. Furthermore, this would also fail most of the elements, as they build upon the first element, because there was no owed duty of care, then the person throwing the punch cannot have breached this duty; even though they would meet the latter elements, as it caused the victim’s death and was often done consciously and voluntarily.
This common law crime would not be sufficient to handle this uptick of crime, and other existing criminal charges must be examined to see if legislating this specific action was warranted.
Workplace manslaughter
Interestingly, on 1 July 2020 the Victorian Government introduced a new form of manslaughter under s 39G of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, which effectively placed workplaces under the negligent manslaughter charge.[2] While this occurred well after the influx of violent king hits causing deaths, it is another example of an existing law catching a range of categories.
To be successfully prosecuted under s 39G the prosecution must prove that the person is not a volunteer and is an officer of an applicable entity who engages in negligent conduct; who breaches their owed duty to another; and causes that persons death.[3] This is largely similar to negligent manslaughter as they both require the accused to owe a duty of care and that breach caused the death of the victim.
If this was a possible charge during the king hit epidemic, it too would suffer from the same issue, as the people causing the strikes were not businesses or people associated with a business. Rather, it seems likely that this specific offence was made to ensure that businesses were caught under the negligent manslaughter charge. Which as I explain in detail below is a key reason for why the king hit manslaughter was specifically criminalised.
Traditional forms of manslaughter
The traditional forms of manslaughter that everyone is probably used to are voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is when the required mental prerequisite is met for murder, but the charge is instead lowered.[4] Such as intentionally shooting a gun at someone and being indifferent as to whether they would die, the intention to kill was there but it may be lowered to a lesser crime.
Voluntary manslaughter is an interesting one for its elements, as it does not have its own elements, but is instead a lesser charge to murder that the jury can impose on an accused person found guilty. This is typically used in situations where the prosecution may be unable to prove the intent of the accused, such as in situations where they are in a situation and stabbed someone, it is hard to prove there was the intent to kill someone at the time of the stabbing.[5]
This should have been sufficient to catch the people committing the king hit, as they were acting indifferently if the people getting hit in the back of the head would die; but it is a hard charge as proving that someone intentionally caused the death through a punch, is difficult as they may plead ignorance or that there was a break in the chain of causation as the fall may have finished the victim or they died in hospital from medical intervention. Rather, I believe the next form of manslaughter would be sufficient to capture the essence of the hits.
Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter where the required mental prerequisite for murder cannot be met and instead the action causing death was caused by an unlawful or dangerous act/criminal negligence.[6] Such as firing a gun wildly into a crowd or striking someone in the back of the head without provocation. The courts have found that an action is considered dangerous if a reasonable person in the position of the offender would have realised there was an appreciable risk of serious injury.[7]
For involuntary manslaughter the prosecution must prove four elements; that the accused committed the act causing death; that it was “committed consciously, voluntarily and deliberately”; it was unlawful; and it was dangerous.[8] This is hard to prove because a key cause of concern is whether the punch to the back of the head caused the actual death, as the victim may simply walk away briefly and die later or they may fall and hit their head, muddying the actual cause of death.
Through these two forms of manslaughter, it becomes evident that hitting someone in the back of the head while drunk is caught within these offences and that it is something the courts have the power and authority to handle.
If the strike to the head was premeditated such as them planning to hit anybody while drunk or that they were so ignorant to the fact that striking someone in the back of the head was likely to kill them it would be caught by voluntary manslaughter.
If there was no intention to strike the person in the back of the head or to even commit the violent crime, it would have been caught by involuntary manslaughter, as assault is an illegal activity and even then, the court does not excuse drunken behaviour.
Even if there were concerns about the actual cause of death, it is likely that the chain of causation should have been satisfied with the initial punch or series of punches that caused the following events; someone dying in hospital should not be enough to forget why there were originally placed in the hospital.
Mandatory sentencing
It must be mentioned that during the time of creation for these new manslaughter laws, criminal courts in Victoria had to implement mandatory minimum sentences.[9] Which again was most likely a response to public outrage over people committing crimes and receiving a ‘light’ sentence. If parliament were to introduce a new law that is backed by an Act, then it is easier for them to introduce a mandatory sentence as it can be baked into the Act, which they did through “Manslaughter—single punch or strike taken to be dangerous act”, as it is a statutory crime, there is a legislative backing.[10]
Parliament introducing a new crime to specifically outlaw a single punch death allows them to be seen as responding to community concerns by making it explicitly illegal. This would also make it easier for parliament to impose whatever mandatory sentence they deem important for it, as enacting new legislation is a lot easier to do than try and impose sentences on existing charges. This would also position the public to see that parliament is acting and responding to their concerns by showing that those who are committing these violent assaults and deaths are being properly punished.
Single Strike Manslaughter aka King Hit Manslaughter
Finally, what I believe is the most probable cause for parliament to enact this new law is that they make it easier for successful prosecution in court. Existing forms of manslaughter had strict elements that the prosecution had to convince a jury of for successful prosecution.
However, if a new law was created then parliament would be able to make it easier for the prosecution to satisfy the above elements for involuntary and voluntary manslaughter. The explanatory memorandum demonstrates parliament’s intention in creating the bill, they intended for the prosecution to rely on a single punch or strike to be a dangerous act in proving it was an unlawful act causing the death.[11] Furthermore, it allows the prosecution to use a singular strike causing death if there were multiple strikes, and that if they cannot it codifies Wilson v The Queen as the test for appreciable risk.[12]
The explanatory memorandum also states the process the prosecution must follow if they were to seek a statutory minimum sentence, which was ten years on successful prosecution.[13] This would make sentencing easier and simultaneously harder for judges, it would make it easier because there is a guideline on what they have to follow, but harder because they are limited in what they can factor in as there is a minimum standard once the case has been proven.
Interestingly, Manslaughter—single punch or strike taken to be dangerous act does not actually create a new offence, rather it is an alternative pathway for involuntary manslaughter. As it states that it applies to “a single punch or strike that” is delivered to any part of a person’s head or neck; and causes injury to the head or neck.[14] Furthermore, it explicitly states that it is to be taken as a dangerous act relating to manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act.[15]
Parliament creating a new offence to handle this issue, gives them the necessary opportunity to get around this issue of causality. Introducing it as an alternative pathway for manslaughter provides more clarification for when there may be doubt on the actual cause of death, such as if they die a few days later or die weeks later in hospital from the original punch.
Conclusion
The epidemic of violent king hits occurring around 2014 highlighted the rigidity of the criminal legal system when it comes to prosecuting individuals committing violent crimes, as the existing manslaughter charges at face value should have been sufficient to capture these offenders. However, parliament enacting new legislation specifically outlawing and capturing this specific behaviour may have been a way to ease the public’s concern and show that their concerns were not being ignored. I believe that the legislation was also created for other reasons, as during this period Victoria had a mandatory sentencing mandate and enacting new legislation would have made it easier to implement these new changes.
[1] Judicial College of Victoria, (online 7 June 2017) 7.2.3 Negligent Manslaughter.
[2] (Vic).
[3] Ibid s 39(1)-(3).
[4] LexisNexis, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia (at 19 March 2026) 130 Criminal Law, ‘4 Manslaughter’ [130-3400].
[5] ‘MANSLAUGHTER’, Gerties Law (Supreme Court of Victoria, 11 May 2021)
< https://omny.fm/shows/gertie-s-law/manslaughter?in_playlist=podcast>.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313.
[8] Judicial College of Victoria, (online 7 Aug 2025) 7.2.2 ‘Manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act’.
[9] Fitz-Gibbon, Kate, Legal responses to one-punch homicide in Victoria: understanding
the impact of law reform (Faculty of Arts, Monash University, 2018) (‘Fitz-Gibbon’).
[10] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 4A (‘Crimes’).
[11] Explanatory Memorandum, Sentencing Amendment (Coward’s Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters) Bill 2014 (Vic).
[12] Ibid.
[13] Fitz-Gibbon (n 9) 36.
[14] Crimes (n 10) s 4A.
[15] Ibid.
Leave a Reply