Murder, self defence, defensive homicide?

Research focussed on recent amendments to Victorian homicide defence legislation, investigating community decisions in cases where a fatality followed an alleged sexual assualt. Findings suggest that legislation may not match community sentiment and jurors require comprehensive instructions. Further, relationship history, accused, deceased and juror gender have an impact on verdict.

Homicide law reform in Victoria, Australia from provocation to defensive homicide and beyond

Homicide law reform surrounding the partial defences to murder currently animates legal stakeholders in Australia and the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to cases of lethal intimate partner violence. In 2005, the Victorian Government implemented a series of homicide law reforms, central to which was the abolition of the partial defence of provocation and the instatement of an offence of defensive homicide. This article, based on a larger qualitative research study with British, Victorian and New South Wales legal stakeholders, explores experiences and perceptions of reforms in Victoria. An analysis of the impact of homicide law reform, using Hudson's principles of discursiveness and reflectiveness as a framework for analysis, reveals some dissonance between the intent and outcomes of these legal reforms. This study concludes that reforms crafted to counter gender bias in the operation of homicide law have produced mixed results for female victims of intimate partner homicide and related case law.

Legitimising lethal male violence : why defensive homicide needs to be abolished

This articles examine the unintended operation defensive homicide in Victoria since its introduction in November 2005. In doing so, its makes an argument for the abolition of this alternative offence to murder. 

Abolishing defensive homicide will benefit female victims and offenders

The Victorian Department of Justice has released its long-awaited review into operation of the controversial offence of defensive homicide. The Consultation Paper proposes the offence’s abolition on the basis that it is “inherently complex”, “has no clear benefit” for women who kill in the context of family violence and has been “inappropriately” used by men who kill.

Abolishing defensive homicide offence essential

The Victorian government's proposal to abolish the offence of defensive homicide is a welcome step forward for a law that has been plagued by controversy since the abolition in 2005 of the partial defence of provocation. The offence of defensive homicide was introduced in November 2005 in response to concerns that the abolition of provocation would disadvantage those who killed in response to prolonged family violence.

The abolition of defensive homicide : a step towards populist punitivism at the expense of mentally impaired offenders

The offence of defensive homicide was abolished in Victoria in November 2014, following a widely held perception that it was being abused by violent men. While primarily associated with battered women who killed in response to prolonged family violence — but who were unable to establish their offending as self-defence — a less publicised rationale underpinning the introduction of defensive homicide was to provide an alternative offence for offenders with cognitive impairments not covered by the mental impairment (formerly the insanity) defence. Cognitive impairments are complex and varied in their nature and symptomatology. Offenders presenting with cognitive impairments therefore require an appropriate range of legal responses to capture the nuances and appropriate moral culpability of their conduct. Drawing from an analysis of the cases of defensive homicide heard over its 10–year lifespan, this article contends that the abolition of defensive homicide did not adequately take into consideration the potential impacts on individuals whose mental conditions are not typically covered by the restrictive mental impairment defence. We further argue that the decision to abolish defensive homicide was driven by dominant, populist voices, without sufficient attention given to the offence’s potential to achieve the aims underpinning its enactment, including providing an alternative offence for women who kill in response to prolonged family violence.

Homicide law reform, gender and the provocation defence: a comparative perspective

 The operation of the partial defence of provocation has animated significant debate for more than two decades among scholars, legal practitioners, politicians and the community. In recognition of the injustices that result from its operation, criminal justice systems worldwide have conducted reviews of the law of provocation and have implemented divergent reforms targeted at minimizing the influence of gender bias in the law's operations. Drawing on the voices of over one hundred members of the Victorian, New South Wales and English criminal justice systems, this book provides a much-needed comparative analysis of the operation of this controversial partial defence to murder, the varied approaches taken to reforming the law of provocation and the effects of these reforms in practice.

Victoria's new homicide laws: provocative reforms or more stories of women 'asking for it'

The controversial partial defence of provocation has now been abolished in three Australian jurisdictions, including Victoria. Recent developments in Victorian case law would appear to suggest a continuation of ‘excuses’ for male anger and violence towards women that position the woman victim as to blame for her own death. This article considers that the 2005 abolition of provocation was only in part designed to redress the problem of victim-blame. The decision was accompanied by other key changes introduced into the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) to make it easier for women who kill in the context of family violence to successfully claim self-defence and ‘excessive self-defence’ (defensive homicide). Drawing on recent developments in Victorian case law since the 2005 amendments, this article argues that the claim that provocation’s victim-blaming narratives are being mobilised in the guise of other defences merits closer analysis. It also argues that provocation’s critics must continue to expose the gendered (and raced) assumptions underlying the other defences to homicide, such as self-defence including manslaughter and the new offence of defensive homicide. Otherwise there is a risk that provocation’s victim-blaming narratives could end up rewritten in such a way that support an argument for a reduction in culpability in cases where there is a history of violence against the woman victim, which is likely to result in claims that little has changed.