Mr Hoye died in June last year after an altercation involving Ashley Smith, a 23-year-old Wee Waa man.

Mr Hoye had been acting provocatively, mistakenly believing Smith’s group had been responsible for attacking him earlier in the night.

He had been under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the time.

Smith was also under the influence when the incident occurred.

Justice Matthews did not mince words in her finding.

“It is highly probable that, had one or other of Mr Hoye or Mr Smith not been significantly affected by alcohol, this tragedy would not have

happened.”

In other words if either of those two young men had chosen not to drink to the point where their self-control was seriously impaired it is highly likely Mr Hoye would be alive and well today.

And, as a consequence, Smith would still be at liberty enjoying the company of his friends and family.

That would be a much nicer alternative than being locked away with hardened criminals until November 10, 2013 – his first possible parole date.

The Hoye case does raise some interesting points about the way the legal system views the influence of alcohol in violent crime.

While conceding Smith would not have killed Mr Hoye if he had not been drinking, Justice Matthews gave him a lighter sentence than he would otherwise have received if he had been sober.

Given that on any Friday or Saturday night large groups of revellers deliberately set out to get as intoxicated as possible this seems a strange tack to take.

There is an argument that deliberate self-intoxication should add to the level of culpability for any subsequent crime – not diminish it.