In a shocking legal battle that raises questions about responsibility and relationships, a man is fighting to avoid a manslaughter charge following the death of his new partner. But here's where it gets controversial: does a short-lived and tumultuous relationship absolve someone from a duty of care? This is the core issue at the heart of the case involving John Torney, 40, and Emma Bates, 49, who was found dead at her home in Cobram, near the NSW-Victoria border, on April 23, 2024.
Bates’ death has sparked a heated debate in Melbourne Magistrates Court. Prosecutors allege that Torney struck Bates on the head in the days leading up to her death, but a forensic pathologist pointed to diabetic ketoacidosis—a condition caused by high blood sugar levels—as the likely cause. And this is the part most people miss: the prosecution argues that Torney still owed Bates a duty of care because they were in a de facto relationship, given their intimacy and shared living arrangements.
Torney’s defense, however, paints a different picture. His barrister, Hayden Rattray, contends that their relationship was 'extraordinarily short-lived'—lasting only two to four weeks—and 'profoundly unhealthy,' falling far short of a de facto partnership. Rattray argues that a jury cannot reasonably conclude Torney owed Bates a duty of care under these circumstances. Boldly put, this challenges the very definition of what constitutes a relationship in legal terms.
The case also hinges on Torney’s actions on the morning of April 22. Bates had a head injury, allegedly caused by Torney, and was moaning in distress. Instead of calling an ambulance, Torney threw her sugar tester toward her. Prosecutor Matthew Cookson argues that this 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 counters that it’s unclear when Bates’ ketoacidosis began, making it impossible to prove that Torney’s failure to call an ambulance directly caused her death. 'He had no reason to expect she would not wake up,' Rattray said. This raises a thought-provoking question: At what point does inaction become criminal negligence?
Magistrate Stephen Ballek has reserved his decision until November 19, leaving the legal community and the public alike eagerly awaiting the outcome. This case not only tests the boundaries of legal responsibility but also forces us to consider the complexities of human relationships and moral obligations.
What do you think? Should a short-lived relationship exempt someone from a duty of care? Or does the nature of the relationship—regardless of its duration—impose certain responsibilities? Share your thoughts in the comments below and join the conversation.
Stay updated on this and other breaking news by downloading the 9NEWS APP, available on the Apple App Store and Google Play. Get notifications straight to your smartphone and stay informed on the latest in news, sport, politics, and weather.
