It is a national scourge and appears to be getting worse.

Therefore we are alarmed that a perpetrator of family violence can be excused because they were "sleep walking".

We note that this was apparently due to excessive alcohol consumption.

We also note that chief magistrate Michael Brett presided, and given his vast experience, we will trust his judgment. You don't make chief magistrate for nothing.

Given that this was the best verdict available in the circumstances, and backed by precedent, presumably the state won't leave it at that, and if the accused has a drinking problem you would expect the accused would be required to undergo treatment. This won't happen because the accused was found not guilty.

From a layman's point of view, if a self-induced factor such as alcohol is so potent as to cause a not guilty verdict then the state should intervene to lessen the chances of the bashing being repeated.

An accused wife basher has been spared punishment. No matter what the circumstances there is still a victim, and Australia, from the Prime Minister down, is currently focused on the plight and the rights of family violence victims.

For this serious charge to be quashed by way of a defence there has to be a quid proquo. If excessive alcohol is causing violent sleep walking, then the law should be changed so the accused can get help. Apparently the violence would not have occurred if alcohol was not involved.

Many years ago some lawyers argued for excessive alcohol consumption to be a defence against negligence causing death. Most of us disagreed.

The sleep walking case is unusual and confronting. Sometimes the courts are constrained by law and that's where Parliament must intervene, at times to protect both victim and accused.