Every decent New Zealander will feel sympathy for the  family of Navtej Singh following the verdict which found just one of those tried for his murder guilty, with the rest guilty of neither murder nor manslaughter. Mr Singh was shot in the course of an armed  robbery, and died for a trifling sum of money and some liquor.

His widow is clearly bewildered by the verdict, but showed great dignity in accepting that this is what the jury has found. Mrs Singh remains angry that her husband lay mortally wounded in her arms for 26 minutes until emergency services were allowed to tend to him – despite the fact that police were told by several different people that the robbers had long fled at that point.

This morning’s Herald report suggests that the delay may, at least in part, have been caused because police had arrived at the scene with the wrong keys to the safe containing firearms in one of their cars. The Herald also reports that the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s report is ready to be released, but must wait until the 30 days in which the killer may appeal has passed. The report will no doubt make interesting if sober reading.

While no-one with any compassion can fail to feel for the Singh family, I also have some sympathy for the jury. The law on “parties” – which can make a person who, while not actually pulling a trigger, just as guilty as the one who did –   is not simple. Essentially, the Crown must prove that the “party” was engaged in a common purpose with the killer, and knew or ought to have known that a killing and not just a robbery was a likely result of that common purpose. It is the kind of distinction upon which defence lawyers thrive.

The length of the jury’s retirement probably indicates that they struggled with the level of culpability of those other than the principal offender. I do not envy them their task.  They will all have been profoundly affected by the case, and probably have a heightened appreciation of their own loved ones.

When the Sentencing and Parole Bill passes into law, it will make a profound difference for  offenders like these. Firstly, such a principal offender may potentially receive Life Without Parole (LWOP) although sadly, because his crime is now so common, that would  be unlikely in this case. Instead of receiving a sentence of six or eight years for aggravated robbery – with eligibility for parole after serving one third - those convicted of aggravated robbery will have committed a ”strike”, and be no more than  two steps away from a very lengthy term of imprisonment,  during which such offenders cannot harm other innocent businessmen in their shops. The days of such offenders racking up dozens of convictions for serious violence are over.

That time cannot come soon enough.  After the Bill finally passes, innocent victims will be that much less likely to be assaulted and killed, and those who wish to harm them will quickly become aware of  some meaningful consequences if they do.  Contrary to the claims of the criminal apologists, such offenders are usually not stupid.