Murder or manslaughter? NSW ponders the provocation problem

In Parliament last week, NSW took steps towards better understanding, and potentially solving, the problems posed by the partial defence of provocation. This comment analyses key arguments presented to the Parliamentary Select Committee for the retention and abolition of the partial defence of provocation.

Legal loophole protecting violent men : why the defence of provocation needs to change

This comment analyses the successful use of the provocation defence in New South Wales in cases of male perpetrated intimate homicide. In doing so, it makes an argument for why the defence should be abolished.

Time to act - provocation must be rejected as an excuse for murder

This opinion piece provides an argument for why the Select Committee of the New South Wales Parliamentary Inquiry into the partial defence of provocation should reccomend abolition of this controversial partial defene to murder. 

The mandatory life sentence for murder : an argument for judicial discretion in England

In 1965, alongside the abolition of capital punishment, a mandatory life sentence for murder was implemented in England and Wales. The mandatory life sentence served as a signal to the public that the criminal justice system would still implement the most severe sanction of life imprisonment in cases of murder. Nearly 50 years later, this article examines whether the imposition of a mandatory life sentence for murder is still in the best interests of justice or whether English homicide law would be better served by a discretionary sentencing system. In doing so, the article considers debates surrounding the political and public need for a mandatory life sentence for murder by drawing upon interviews conducted with 29 members of the English criminal justice system. This research concludes that a discretionary sentencing framework is required to adequately respond to the many contexts within which the crime of murder is committed.

NSW parliamentary inquiry recommends partial reform to provocation law

This piece reviews the recommendations for reform put forward by the NSW Parliamentary Committee into the Partial Defence of Provocation. 

Changing provocation law could legitimise lethal acts of domestic violence

The O'Farrell government must reconsider their recommendation to retain a restricted version of the controversial partial defence of provocation. The government has released a draft exposure bill recommending reform of a partial defence that has long attracted criticism and community concern. Under the proposed reform, the defence will be significantly restricted and will be renamed the "partial defence of extreme provocation".

The senseless war : the sentencing drug offenses arms race

There has been a considerable increase in the penalties for drug trafficking following the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, over fifty years ago. In many parts of the world, the sanctions are as severe as those for homicide and rape. This penalty escalation is at odds with the counter movement to decriminalise illicit drugs. Drug supplying is the only serious crime where there are widespread moves to decriminalize the main outcome of the crime – the use illicit drugs. This paper explores this paradox. It also examines the rationales for the increasingly harsh penalties for drug suppliers. We conclude that while there is no conclusive argument in favour of the decriminalizing drugs, the weight of empirical data does not establish any concrete benefits stemming from severe penalties for serious drug offenses. In particular, there is no correlation between longer prison terms for drug offenders and a reduction in the availability and use of drugs. We propose that the penalties for drug offenses should be reduced considerably. There is no useful objective that can be achieved by a twenty-five-year term of imprisonment that cannot be achieved by a term of five to ten years. A more measured sentencing response to serious drug offense penalties would make sentencing fairer and enable billions of dollars currently directed to imprisonment to be spent on more pressing community needs.

The Mengistu genocide trial in Ethiopia

This article analyses the sentencing judgment issued on 11 January 2007 bythe Ethiopian Federal High Court in the case of Mengistu Hailemariam andhis co-accused who had been tried, among others, on charges of genocide andcrimes against humanity. This was the first African trial where an entire regimewas brought to justice before a national court for atrocities committed while inpower. Twenty-five of the 55 accused found guilty, including Mengistu, were triedin absentia (Mengistu remains in exile in Zimbabwe). The trial took 12 years,making it one of the longest ever trials for genocide. In December 2006, Mengistuwas convicted by majority vote of genocide and crimes against humanity pursuant toArticle 281of the1957 Ethiopian Penal Code, which includes ‘political groups’amongthe groups protected against genocide. A dissenting judge took the position that theaccused should have been convicted of aggravated homicide because the relevant part of the provision had been repealed. A few weeks later, the Court, by majority,sentenced the top tier of the accused to life imprisonment, taking into accountcertain extenuating circumstances. If not for these, the death penalty would havebeen imposed. In addition to ensuring some accountability, the judgmentis important for providing an official and detailed account of what happenedin those years in Ethiopia under Mengistu’s reign. Given that in Ethiopia there areno official gazettes where court judgments are published, it is unlikely that the publicwill be able to read the judgment and thus become aware of what had happened.In addition to analysing the reasoning of the court, this article also looks intothe prevailing political circumstances in the country and reflects upon the trialand the reception that this important decision has had, and will receive, in thewider community.

Feminist challenges to the constraints of law : donning uncomfortable robes?

Legal judgment writing mobilises a process of story-telling, drawing on existing judicial discourses, precedents and practices to create a narrative relevant to the specific case that is articulated by the presiding judge. In the Feminist Judgments projects feminist scholars and activists have sought to challenge and reinterpret legal judgments that have disadvantaged, discriminated against or denied women’s experiences. This paper reflects on the process of writing as a feminist judge in the Australian Project, in an intimate homicide case, R v Middendorp. Drawing on the work of Judith Butler on intelligibility, iterability and the communality of violence and vulnerability, this article argues that feminist judgments necessarily require some uncomfortable compromises with unjust gendered institutions. While ‘donning the robes’ may be an uncomfortable process, a feminist re-articulation of the law’s carceral power serves to unsettle and challenge some aspects of gendered oppression, even though it cannot unsettle the operation of the institution. The article concludes that effective feminist interventions by members of the judiciary may require donning robes that are not entirely comfortable in order to persuade and advocate for change.