Summary
The partial defence of provocation [2]: Provocation is a partial defence
to murder. If the prosecution or jury accepts the defence, it results in a
conviction for manslaughter instead of murder. The defence developed in English
courts in the 16
th and 17
th centuries. At that time, the
death penalty was mandatory for persons convicted of murder. In addition, it
was considered virtuous for a man of honour to respond with controlled violence
to certain forms of offensive behaviour. If he overreacted to some degree, but
not disproportionately, such overreaction was considered to be natural human
frailty. The current statutory version of the defence in NSW applies where: (a)
the act causing death was the result of a loss of self-control on the part of
the accused that was induced by any conduct of the deceased towards or
affecting the accused; and (b) that conduct of the deceased was such as could
have induced an ordinary person in the position of the accused to have so far
lost self control as to have formed an intent to kill, or to inflict grievous
bodily harm upon, the deceased.
Debate about the provocation defence [3]: Several criticisms have been
made about the defence including that provocation and a loss of self-control is
an inappropriate basis for a partial defence; that the defence is
gender-biased; that the test for the defence is conceptually confused and
difficult for juries to understand; and that, as there is no longer a mandatory
sentence for murder, provocation should be taken into account in sentencing.
Concerns have, in particular, been expressed about the acceptance of the
defence in cases where men have killed their female partners; and in cases
where men have killed in response to a non-violent sexual advance by a
homosexual person. Some argue that the provocation defence should be reformed,
and others, that it should be abolished. Arguments for retaining the defence
include that provoked killers are not 'murderers'; that juries should decide
questions of culpability; that abolishing the defence would lead to increased
sentences and uncertainty, and that it would also increase community
dissatisfaction with sentencing.
Statistics on use of provocation defence [4]: A report by the Judicial
Commission of NSW contains data on the use of provocation in NSW in the period
from 1990 to 2004. The report found that provocation was raised in 115 cases
and it was successful in 75 of these cases. Other findings included that:
· there were 11 male offenders that successfully relied on provocation in
the context of infidelity or the breakdown of an intimate relationship;
· there were 3 male offenders that successfully relied on provocation in the
context of an alleged violent confrontation with his female partner;
· there were 11 offenders who successfully relied on provocation in the context
of an alleged homosexual advance; and
· there were 10 cases where a woman successfully relied on provocation after
killing her violent male partner.
Kate Fitz-Gibbon conducted a review of convictions for manslaughter on the
basis of provocation in the NSW Supreme Court in the period from January 2005
to December 2012. This review identified 15 cases where the provocation defence
was successful. It was noted that five of these cases involved a non-violent
confrontation. In three of these cases the victim was the current or estranged
female partner of the male defendant; and in two of these cases, the killing
resulted from an allegation of infidelity by the defendant.
Recent provocation defence cases in NSW [5]: A recent provocation
defence case is
Singh v R. In that case, Mr Singh had moved to Australia
on a spousal visa, his wife having already moved to Australia on a study visa.
Their relationship began to deteriorate from the time of his arrival in
Australia. During an argument, Mr Singh killed his wife, strangling her and
cutting her throat at least eight times with a Stanley knife. According to the
offender, during their confrontation, his wife had slapped him several times,
and told him that she had never loved him, that she only loved another man, and
that she would make sure he was kicked out of the country. The offender was
charged with murder but the jury convicted him of manslaughter on the basis of
provocation. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole
period of six years.
Provocation reform proposals in NSW [6]: In 1997, the NSW Law Reform
Commission published a report on provocation, which recommended retaining the
defence but reformulating it. The Commission rejected the option of
specifically excluding the operation of the defence in cases where men killed
female partners after a relationship breakdown, or in cases of killings in
response to homosexual advances. It also rejected the option of removing the
“loss of self-control” requirement in the defence to make it more
available to women who kill their violent partners. In 1998, a Working Party
published its report on killings in response to homosexual advances, which
recommended amending the defence. The recommendations that were made by the
Commission and the Working Party have not been implemented.
Provocation reforms in other States [7]: In 2003, Tasmania became the
first Australian jurisdiction to abolish the provocation defence. Since then,
two other States have also abolished the defence: Victoria in 2005 and Western
Australia in 2008. In Queensland, the defence was recently amended to reduce
the scope of it being available to those who kill out of sexual possessiveness
or jealousy. The Queensland Law Reform Commission had recommended amending,
rather than abolishing, the defence but the mandatory life sentence for murder
weighed heavily in coming to this conclusion. The Queensland Government has
recently stated that, at this stage, it will not amend the defence to expressly
exclude cases involving non-violent sexual advances. This is a reform that has
been enacted in the ACT and Northern Territory.
Provocation reforms in other countries [8]: The defence of provocation
was abolished in New Zealand in 2009. In the United Kingdom, provocation was
replaced in 2009 with a new partial defence known as "loss of
control". This defence only applies if the defendant's loss of
self-control had a "qualifying trigger". One of the triggers is that
the loss of self-control was attributable to a thing done or said which
constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character; and which caused the
defendant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged. However, "the fact
that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be
disregarded". The other trigger is if the defendant's loss of
self-control was due to the defendant's fear of serious violence from the
victim or another person. In 2009, the Law Reform Commission of Ireland
recommended retaining but reformulating the partial defence.
Self-defence and excessive self-defence [9]: The defence of self-defence
is a complete defence to murder. If the jury accepts the defence it results in
an acquittal. Previously, the defence was defined by the common law. In 2001,
the defence was codified in legislation in NSW. The defence applies if: (a) a
person believed that their conduct was necessary to defend themself or another
person; and (b) the person's conduct was a reasonable response in the
circumstances as they perceived them. In 2001, the partial defence of excessive
self-defence was also reintroduced in NSW (as with the defence of provocation,
this partial defence reduces murder to manslaughter). The partial defence of
excessive self-defence applies if a person believed that their conduct was
necessary to defend themself but this conduct was not
to a reasonable
response in the circumstances as they perceived them.
Self-defence and women who kill their violent partners [10]:
Longstanding concerns have been held about the difficulties women face in
relying on self-defence when they have killed male partners in the context of a
prolonged period of domestic violence and for reasons of self-preservation.
The difficulties have arisen, in part, because of the traditional association
of self-defence with a one-off spontaneous encounter, such as a pub brawl. The
legal test for self-defence has evolved over time and may be broad enough to
accommodate women's experiences. The current provision does not require that
the threat be imminent or that the response be proportionate. However, the
application of the defence in this context is still problematic because these
continue to be significant factors in determining whether the defence has been
made out.
In response to the difficulties that women have faced in relying on
self-defence, defence lawyers have attempted to call expert evidence showing
that a woman who killed her abusive partner was suffering from "battered
woman syndrome". One part of this "syndrome" is that women find
it difficult to break out of a cycle of violence because of "learned
helplessness". In the 1998 decision of
Osland v The Queen, the High
Court affirmed that this evidence was admissible but Justice Kirby noted that
the syndrome was controversial.
More recently, reliance on the battered
woman syndrome has been criticised, and researchers have called for an
acceptance of expert evidence which places greater emphasis on the social
realities of a woman's situation and which reflects the current state of
knowledge about the dynamics of abusive relationships.
The reintroduction of the partial defence of excessive self-defence may assist
women who have killed their abusive partner but who cannot satisfy all of the
elements of self-defence. However, a concern has been raised that the
availability of this defence may prevent women from being acquitted on the
basis of self-defence, due to the existence of an 'easy' middle option. A
Judicial Commission of NSW study on partial defences found that between 2002
and June 2005, two women had successfully relied on the partial defence of
excessive self-defence after killing their male partners. In both cases, the
woman was under attack when she killed her partner.
Self-defence reforms in other States [11]: Since 1987, most Australian
jurisdictions have enacted new statutory provisions on the complete defence of
self-defence. Some jurisdictions have also reintroduced the partial defence of
excessive self defence. This paper focused on developments in three States:
Victoria, Western Australia, and Queensland.
Victoria (in 2005) and Western Australia (in 2008) both enacted new provisions
on the complete defence of self-defence and they also both reintroduced the
partial defence of excessive self-defence (in Victoria, this was achieved by
enacting a new provision on "defensive homicide"). Victoria also
introduced special provisions that apply when family violence is alleged. The
provisions state that a person may have reasonable grounds for believing that
their conduct was necessary to defend themself even if they were responding to
harm that was not immediate, or their response involved the use of excessive
force. The provisions also set out a non-exhaustive list of the kinds of
evidence that might be relevant to determining whether the person had the
requisite belief and whether there were reasonable grounds for the belief. The
way in which the defensive homicide provision has operated in Victoria (being
mainly used by men) has attracted criticism and it is currently under review.
In Queensland, the provisions on self-defence have not been reformed but in
2011 a new partial defence to homicide was enacted: "killing for
preservation in an abusive relationship". This implemented, in part, the
recommendations by two academics, who were commissioned by the Attorney-General
in 2009 to consider the development of a separate defence for battered persons
who kill their abusers. The report by the academics noted that there was a
strong preference from within the legal community for a separate defence rather
than for reform of the general law of self-defence. The report also noted that
there was insufficient support for a separate complete defence. Commentators
have been critical of the new partial defence which, they say, is very similar
to the defence of self-defence but leads to a different result.
Self-defence reports in other countries [12]: There have been no
legislative reforms to self-defence in other countries such as New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. Of these countries, only in New Zealand and
Ireland has the relevant law reform commission considered the issue of
self-defence for women who kill their violent partners. In 2001, the New
Zealand Law Reform Commission recommended amending the law of self-defence to
make it clear that there can be situations in which the use of force is
reasonable where the danger is not imminent but is inevitable. A 2009 report by
the Law Reform Commission of Ireland did not recommend any major reforms.
National report on legal responses to family violence [13]: In October
2010, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the NSW Law Reform Commission
jointly published a comprehensive report on family violence. One section of
the report examined defences to homicide, including provocation and
self-defence. The report made some general recommendations including: that
governments should ensure that defences to homicide accommodate the experiences
of family violence victims who kill; that governments should review their
defences; and also that legislation should provide guidance about the potential
relevance of family-violence related evidence in the context of a defence to
homicide (along the lines of the Victorian model).