Ms Helen Doyle:

Reference has been made to how it is somewhat arbitrary if someone has given a spouse an entire property and we do not go near that. This is about property that is tied in together in a scenario where we do not know who would have died first. Presuming that the person who was murdered dies first, then giving the benefit to the killer is at the core of this. That goes against public policy and all our constitutional principles. We are giving a benefit to a killer to the disadvantage of the family of the person who was killed or we are giving the benefit to the killer's beneficiaries, who could be anyone. All of the estate that would have gone to the victim if she had lived out her life normally would have gone to her beneficiaries. What about their property rights? I know they are not vested at that stage but those people are still being deprived. That causes great emotional strain, as in this case where the family of the victim were forced to buy out the person who murdered the family member. We have to go a little further and consider these situations. It is not simply a case of splitting it because that is the fairest thing on grounds of property rights. Currently, we are giving a benefit to a killer.