A shocking case has left many questioning the boundaries of legal responsibility in relationships. Can a brief, tumultuous romance absolve someone from a duty of care when tragedy strikes? This is the core issue at the heart of a recent legal battle, where a man is fighting to dismiss a negligent manslaughter charge following the death of his new partner.
John Torney, 40, is accused of failing to act after his partner, Emma Bates, 49, was found dead in her Cobram home near the NSW-Victoria border on April 23, 2024. Prosecutors claim Torney struck Bates on the head days before her death, but a forensic pathologist pointed to diabetic ketoacidosis—a condition linked to high blood sugar levels—as the likely cause of her passing. But here's where it gets controversial: Did Torney owe Bates a duty of care, or was their relationship too short-lived to warrant such an obligation?
Prosecutor Matthew Cookson argues that Torney and Bates were in a de facto relationship, given their intimacy and shared living arrangements, which would legally obligate Torney to ensure her well-being. However, Torney’s barrister, Hayden Rattray, counters that their relationship lasted a mere two to four weeks, describing it as "extraordinarily short-lived" and "profoundly unhealthy." And this is the part most people miss: Rattray insists that de facto relationships are akin to marriage, a standard he claims their brief connection did not meet.
The prosecution also alleges that Torney failed to call an ambulance on the morning of April 22, despite Bates having a head injury and appearing unwell. Cookson argues that Torney’s inaction breached his duty of care, stating, "He doesn't need to know what's wrong, but he must have been aware something was wrong and failed to act." Rattray, however, questions the timeline of Bates’ ketoacidosis, suggesting it’s unclear whether her condition worsened after Torney last saw her. "He had no reason to expect she would not wake up," Rattray said.
Magistrate Stephen Ballek has reserved his decision until November 19, leaving the legal community and public alike divided. Is a duty of care determined by the length and nature of a relationship, or should it apply universally in intimate partnerships? This case raises thought-provoking questions about accountability and the legal definitions of care. What do you think? Should Torney be held responsible, or does the brevity of their relationship absolve him? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Stay updated on this and other breaking stories by downloading the 9NEWS APP, available on the Apple App Store and Google Play. Get the latest in news, sports, politics, and weather delivered straight to your smartphone.
