Professor John Mee:

I am opposed to discretion because it is illogical. First, it puts the family through this uncertain, open-ended procedure under which, in theory, the killer could get more than them. Second, the factors that are listed out have no resemblance to the key point in question. Issues like the severity of the crime, the age of the killer, his or her needs and income, the age of the victim, his or her income as well as all sorts of factors that relate to divorce-type legislation, such as the contribution of each party to the particular asset, are only relevant to the idea referred to earlier in terms of it being like a family law case. In that scenario, one could make an application for any of the property of the killer on the basis that the deceased would have got that in the event of divorce. These factors are not relevant to the question of what constitutes a benefit. The key question is that of taking a benefit from the person, but we then look at factors like the person's age, the severity of the crime and what contributions the person made to the property before acquiring it. Does the Deputy see how I think all of that is irrelevant?