reforming defences to homicide in victoria: another

DRO Deakin Research Online, Deakin University’s Research Repository Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

Reforming defences to homicide in Victoria: another attempt to address the gender question

Citation: Naylor, Bronwyn and Tyson, Danielle 2017, Reforming defences to homicide in Victoria: another attempt to address the gender question, International journal for crime, justice and social democracy, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 72-87.

DOI: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v6i3.414

© 2017, The Authors

Reproduced by Deakin University under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence

Downloaded from DRO: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30091372

http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v6i3.414

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30091372

www.crimejusticejournal.comIJCJ&SD20166(3):72‐87 ISSN2202–8005

©TheAuthor(s)2017

ReformingDefencestoHomicideinVictoria:AnotherAttempttoAddresstheGenderQuestion

BronwynNaylorRMITUniversity,AustraliaDanielleTysonDeakinUniversity,Australia

Abstract

In2005intheAustralianstateofVictoria,significantchangesweremadetothedefencestohomicide.Thesereformswereinresponsetolongstandingconcernsaboutthegenderedoperation of provocation and self‐defence by feminist researchers and advocates, LawReformCommissions,themediaandpoliticalpressures.Thispapercriticallyexaminesthereformsandtheextenttowhichtheyhaveaddressedthesevariedconcernsandinterests.Thepaperarguesthattheseimportantlawreformshavechallengedsomeofthepowerfulnarrativesbeingusedinthecourtsthatminimisetheexistenceandsignificanceoffamilyviolenceinintimaterelationships.Weseethisparticularlyinjudicialsentencingremarks.However, law reformmust be accompanied by a shift in legal culture to be effective inpractice.Tothisend,wearguethatlegalprofessionalsneedtohaveinformationabouthowtoutilisethenewfamilyviolenceprovisionsaswellasongoingtrainingandprofessionaldevelopmenttopromoteconsistentunderstandingsoffamilyviolenceacrossthecriminaljusticesystem.Keywords

Provocation;self‐defence;lawandgender;feministcritique;homicidelawreform.Pleasecitethisarticleas:NaylorBandTysonD(2017)ReformingdefencestohomicideinVictoria:Anotherattemptto

address the gender question. International Journal forCrime, Justiceand SocialDemocracy6(3):72‐87.DOI:10.5204/ijcjsd.v6i3.414.

ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution4.0Licence.Asan

openaccessjournal,articlesarefreetouse,withproperattribution,ineducationalandothernon‐commercialsettings.ISSN:2202‐8005

BronwynNaylor,DanielleTyson:ReformingDefencestoHomicideinVictoria

IJCJ&SD73Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com ©20176(3)

Introduction

Lawsonhomicidehaveconventionallyincludeddefenceswhicheithercompletelyexoneratetheoffender—for example, thedefence of self‐defence—or reduce the offender’s culpability frommurdertoalesserformofhomicidesuchasmanslaughter.InAustralianjurisdictions,thelattertypeofdefencehasincludedthepartialdefencesofprovocation,diminishedresponsibility1andexcessiveself‐defence.TheAustralianstateofVictoriahasseenaseriesofsignificantreformstothelawofhomicideaimedataddressinglong‐standingcriticismsofthegenderedoperationofthesedefences.Therehave been two key strands of concern: one focussed on men using the partial defence ofprovocationtoexcusetheiractionsinkillingtheirpartnersbyshiftingpartoftheblameontothedeceased (usually awoman) for herowndeath; and theother onwomenwhokill toprotectthemselvesfromseriousharmordeathinthecontextofon‐goingfamilyviolencebuthavenotbeenabletosuccessfullyraiseself‐defencewhereappropriate.Reformsin2005reformulatingself‐defence—mainly through the introduction of a new offence of defensive homicide, andintroducingthepossibilityof‘socialcontext’evidenceoffamilyviolenceinahomicidetrial—andthe 2014 reforms clarifying self‐defence and providing for jury directions on family violenceseemtoaddresstheseconcerns.Theyarealsosymbolicallyimportantingivingexplicitattentionto family violence to problematise the conventional legal formulations of murder and thedefencesaroundmasculinerelationshipsandresponses.Indeed,recentresearchexamininglegalresponsestowomenandmenchargedwithmurderforkillinganintimatepartnersince2005indicatethatthereformsaremakingadifference(Douglas2012;Tyson,Kirkwood,McKenzieandNaylor2015).Thispaperconsiderssomecompetingindicationsoftheirinfluence.The reforms both changed the substantive laws and introduced guidance tomake the familyviolence context explicit and relevant to the trial process. While changing law does notautomatically change attitudes or practices, reformers hoped that the new laws woulddemonstratenewvaluesandthatthesewouldbeadoptedandnormalisedovertime.It is vital that reforms are monitored and evaluated. As this paper argues, the decision toimplement the2014 reformsand, specifically, toabolishdefensivehomicide left little time toexplore how the 2005 reforms were working in practice, particularly for women, given the(fortunately) relatively small number of homicide trials in Victoria. This paper outlines theevolutionof reforms to thedefences tohomicide,particularly the2005and2014 reforms, asdrivenbygender‐focussed,feministconcerns.Itthenevaluatestheoperationofthereforms,andconcludesthatthesubstantiallegalreformshavehadsomepositiveimpactsbutclearlyarestilltakingtimetoinfluencelegalpracticeandculture.Weconcludebyreflectingonhowtobetteroperationalisethesesignificantlegalchanges.Thelawofhomicide

Thedefencestohomicideweredevelopedatcommonlawinthecontextofprovisionforthedeathpenaltyformurder.Self‐defence,forexample,wasthesubjectofnumerouscasesbroughtbeforetheHighCourtofAustraliawhichresultedintheestablishmentofthetermsofthedefenceasprovidingforacompleteacquittalwherethepersonusedreasonableandproportionateforceingenuineself‐defence(seeVirovR(1978)18ALR257;ZecevicvDPP(Vic)(1987)162CLR645).Thedefenceofprovocation,whichreducesliability(andpenalty)frommurdertomanslaughterwherethepersonlostcontrolasaresultofanacceptedcategoryofprovocationandkilledwhilstoutofcontrol,wasthesubjectofnumerousHighCourtcases,fromRvParker(1963)111CLR610 (ultimately appealed to the Privy Council) up to the currently accepted formulations ofStingelvR(1990)171CLR312andthenMasciantoniovR(1995)183CLR58.InAustraliaamodifiedversionofself‐defence,thepartialdefenceof‘excessiveself‐defence’,wasdevelopedbytheHighCourttoprovideforsituationswheretheaccusedgenuinelybelievedthey



wereactinginself‐defence,butwereobjectivelyactingunreasonablyordisproportionately(VirovR(1978)18ALR257).ThispartialdefencewasabolishedbytheHighCourtinZecevicvDPP(Vic)(1987)162CLR645andthenreintroducedinstatutoryforminNewSouthWales(NSW)ins421oftheCrimesAct1900and(briefly)intheformofthedefensivehomicideoffenceinVictoria(Vic)ins9ADoftheCrimesAct1958.Theharshpenaltyformurderprovidedobviousincentivesfordefendantstoraisedefencesandforthesetobefine‐tunedbycourtsbyregularanalysisonappeal.Thisdriverpersistedevenwhencapitalpunishmentwasabolishedinmanyjurisdictionsandthepenaltyformurderwasinsteadamandatorylifesentence.Overtime,jurisdictionssuchasVictoria(in1986)andNSW(in1982)havemodifiedthesentenceformurdertoprovideforjudicialdiscretioninsentencing.Thishasmeant that potentially exculpatory factors motivating the killing can also be considered insentencing.Reformstohomicidelawshave,therefore,beeninfluencedbytheheavypenaltyformurder.Theyhavealsobeeninfluencedbychangingpoliticalandsocialvaluesaboutwhereonthespectrumparticularharmfallsand/orwhether,andtowhatextent,particularmotivationsorcontextsareacceptableexcusesorjustificationsforlethalviolence.Inthisarticle,changingsocialvaluesandcritiquesofhomicidedefencesareconsidered,beforeweturntothespecificrationalesforthe2005Victorianlegislativereforms.Earlycritiquesofthedefencestohomicide

Asetofcritiquesbegantodevelopinthe1970sand1980saspartofthebroaderpoliticalandsocialcritiqueofpowerledbyclass,raceandgendermovements.CriticalLegalStudiesscholarsexposedtheunderpinningsof legaldecision‐making in termsofclassandpower.Critiquesbyfeministsandcriticalracetheoristsdevelopedtheseinsights,beginningfromthefeministworkof, for example,MacKinnon (1987, 1989) in theUS, Smart (1989) in theUKandGraycarandMorgan(1990)inAustralia.Atthesametime,theprevalenceofviolencewithinfamilieswasfinallybeingacknowledged.Thepreviouslyunquestionedentitlementofmentocontrolwomen,andthe‘normality’ofviolenceandcontrollingbehaviourstowardswomen,begantobechallenged.Identificationoftheissueprioritised the collection of data, using crime and victim studies, to better understand thephenomenon(see,forexample,Mugford1989).InAustralia (as elsewhere), homicide laws and the accepted defences, therefore, cameunderchallengefortheirgenderedformulationandoperation.Bythelate1980sinVictoriaandotherjurisdictions,twolinesofcritiquewereevolving.Onefocussedonthetypesofmaleviolencethatwere‘minimised’bybeingidentifiedaslessculpablethroughtheexistenceofaspecificdefence.Forexample,thedefenceofprovocationwascriticisedforprovidinganexcuseformenreactingtowomen’s rejection of them or to awoman’s ‘infidelity’. The other focussed on the lack ofdefences available to women who killed. Homicides (like most offences) are predominantlycommittedbymen,whocommitaround85percentofhomicideoffences(BryantandCussen2015).Soit isnotsurprisingthatcriticalattentionfocussedfirstoncasesofmenarguingthattheirviolencecouldbeexcusedor justifiedon thebasisof thewoman’s failure toactas theywished through defences such as provocation (Crofts and Loughnan 2013; Law ReformCommissionofVictoria1991).Howeverwith increasingacknowledgementofdomesticviolence,andsomehighprofilecasessuch as that of Heather Osland in Australia and Kiranjit Ahluwalia in the UK, attention thenextendedbothinAustraliaandinternationallytowomencommittingfatalviolence,wheretheirvictimwasanintimatepartnerwhowasviolenttowardsthem(seeOslandvR(1998)197CLR316;RvAhluwalia[1992]4AllER889;Women’sCoalitionAgainstFamilyViolence1994).These



casesdemonstratedthattheconventionaldefencesdidnot‘work’fororreflectthelivesofwomeninthewaytheydidformen(Morgan2002;VictoriaLawReformCommission2004).Apersonwhousesviolencetodefendthemselvesagainstathreatofseriousviolencecanraisethedefenceofself‐defence:thisresponseisseenasjustifiable.Thedefencewasdevelopedinthecontextoffightsbetweenmen,whereonethreatenedaharmsoseriousthattheotherrespondedinkind,causingdeath.Incontrast,womenwhowereinaviolentdomesticrelationship,andwhokilledtheirviolentpartner,didnotalwaysfitthetraditionalparadigm.Self‐defenceisdefinedintermsofthenecessityandproportionality(orreasonableness)oftheviolentresponsetoathreat.Theviolencethesewomenfacedatthemomentwhentheykilledmayhavebeenminorortheirvictimmayhavebeendruggedbytheperpetratororasleep(asforexampleinthecasesofOslandandAhluwalia).Theymayhaveusedweaponswheretheirpartner’sviolencewaswithuseofhisfists. Increasing understandings of the dynamics of violent domestic relations led to areconceptualisingofwomen’sviolentresponses insomeof thesecasesasbeing ‘self‐defence’:thatis,theyfacedongoingthreatsofseriousviolencewhichtheycouldnotescapewithoutkillingthe perpetrator (Stubbs and Tolmie 1999). However, the formulation of the defence of self‐defencefocussedonanimmediateandproportionatereactiontoanequallyviolentthreat,andargumentsincourtbasedonself‐defencetendedtobeunsuccessful.AseriesofcasesinAustraliaandelsewheretriedtoeitherextendtheconceptofself‐defence,orpresenttheviolentrelationshipwithintheparadigmofprovocation,byarguingthatthewoman’spsychologicalreactiontobeinginaviolentrelationshipwasequivalenttothatofamanarguingself‐defenceorprovocationintraditionalcontexts(forexample,OslandvR(1998)197CLR316).Adifficultywasinshowingthatthefamilyviolencewarrantedafatalreaction(whetherdefensiveorprovoked),particularlywheretheevidencewasthatthewomanhadcontinuedtolivewiththeviolent partner. Psychological explanations termed ‘battered woman/wife syndrome’ (BWS)wereusedtoarguethat,forthewomanvictimofdomesticviolence,asyndromeofpassivityandhelplessnesscoulddevelopwhichpreventedherfrombeingabletoleave,butfromwhichshecould‘snap’andkill(StubbsandTolmie1999).BWSwasraisedeithertopresentthepartnerviolenceasprovocativeconductwhichformedthebasisforaprovocationdefence,ortomakethewoman’sfatalresponseunderstandableasself‐defence.2BWSwassubsequentlyitselfcriticisedaspathologisingwomen’sresponsestofamilyviolence;itsevidence‐basewasalsoextensivelychallenged(Douglas2015).These concerns were first addressed in 1991 in a report on homicide by the Law ReformCommissionofVictoria(LRCV).Itrecognisedthegenderedcritique,andreceivedsubmissionsfromwomen’s groups andothers,mostofwhich supported the retentionofprovocation.TheLRCVrecommendedretentionofprovocation,statingthattheevidenceshowedthatjuriesdidnot routinely accept men’s provocation arguments, and that it would be ‘ironic to abolishprovocation’whenrecentcaseshadbeguntomakeprovocationmoreavailabletowomen(1991:76).ReformofthedefencestohomicideinVictoria

By 2000 these gender‐based critiques were well established. At that time a newly‐electedgovernmentre‐establishedthebriefly‐disestablishedLRCV,(renamedtheVictorianLawReformCommission(VLRC)),andgavetheVLRCareferencetoreviewalldefencestohomicide.The2005reformsTheVLRC’srecommendationsareoutlinedinits2004reportandwereimplementedthroughtheCrimes (Homicide) Act 2005 (Vic) with some modifications. The 2005 amendments includedabolitionof thedefenceofprovocation (withmattersof culpability suchasprovocation tobetakenintoaccount,ifatall,asmitigationatsentencing),theclarificationandcodificationofself‐



defence (as a full defence), and provision for the introduction of expert evidence of familyviolence. In a significant modification of the VLRC recommendation, a proposed defence ofexcessiveself‐defencewasre‐framedasanewoffenceof‘defensivehomicide’.Theprovisionforintroducingevidenceoffamilyviolencewasdevelopedinanews9AHCrimesAct1958(Vic).Thesectionsetoutarangeofformsof ‘familyviolenceevidence’thatcouldbeintroducedtoexplainhowfamilyviolencemighthaveledthedefendanttobelievethattheirfatalviolencewasnecessaryandreasonable(s9AH(3)).Italsostatedthat,wherefamilyviolenceisallegedinahomicideprosecution,abeliefintheneedtokillinself‐defencecanberaisedeveniftheresponseisnotimmediateortheuseofforceisexcessive(s9AH(1)),addressingthedoctrinalhurdlesforwomenunderthecommonlawnotedabove.The express provision for expert evidence on these matters addressed the evidentiaryrequirement that, tobe admissible in a trial, evidencemustbe legally ‘relevant’. The reformsexplicitly permit introduction of evidence of circumstanceswidely known to be important inunderstanding family violencedynamics,but traditionallynot seenas legally ‘relevant’ to themoment of killing. These include the cumulative effect of family violence (including itspsychologicaleffect),social,culturalandeconomicfactors,andthegeneralnatureanddynamicsoffamilyviolenceincludingthepossibleconsequencesofseparation.3Anydiscussionofmurderanddefencestoittakesplaceintheshadowofthelesseroffenceofmanslaughter.InVictoria,tobeguiltyofmurder,theprosecutionmustprovethatthekillingwas‘intentional’:thatis,thedefendanteitherintendedtocausedeathorgrievousbodilyharm(gbh),orwasrecklessastocausingdeath/gbh(Crabbe1985).Akillingthatwasnotintentionalinthiswaybutresultedfromanunlawfulanddangerousactorfromgrossnegligenceisstillacriminaloffence,but isclassifiedas the lesseroffenceofmanslaughter,withamaximumpenaltyof20years.Thismeansthatapersonwhoarguestheydidnot‘intend’theveryseriouslevelofharmmayeitherbeacquitted,orconvictedofmanslaughter.Thisisrelevanttotheoptionsavailablebothtodefendantsdecidingwhethertopleadguilty,andtoajuryattrial,aswillbeseeninthediscussion below. The 2005 reforms made self‐defence and the family violence provisionsavailabletomanslaughteraswell(s9AE).Feministresearchersandadvocacygroups,mediaandgovernmentweremonitoringtheeffectofthereforms.By2010,at least twopatternswereemerging.At thetime,only twowomenhadkilledaviolentintimatepartnersincethereforms.Neithercaseproceededtotrialasproceedingswerediscontinuedonthebasisthatitwasveryunlikelythatthejurywouldhaveconvictedeitherwomenontheevidence(VictoriaDepartmentofJustice(VDoJ)2010:31‐32).Theoutcomesinthesetwocaseswereseenasasignthatthereformswereworkingforwomendefendants(VDoJ2010:29‐32).Second,asubstantialnumberofmenwhohadkilledothermenhadbeenconvictedofdefensivehomicideeitherasaresultofapleaorafteratrial,mainlyinwhatwereperceivedtobeone‐on‐one‘spontaneous’encounters(VDoJ2010:33).Thispicturewasseenaspotentiallyproblematic.The2014reformsIn2010andagainin2013,theVictoriangovernmentlaunchedreviewsintotheacceptabilityofthedefensivehomicideoffence.The2010reviewwaspromptedbyconcernsoverhowthelawwas operating in cases involvingmenwhokilled their femalepartners and, inparticular, theconvictionsofAnthonySherna(DPPvSherna[2009]VSC526)andLukeJohnMiddendorp(RvMiddendorp[2010]VSC202)formanslaughteranddefensivehomicide,respectively(VDoJ2010:10).Theoutcomesinthesetwocasesledcommentatorstospeculatewhether,intheabsenceofprovocation,defensivehomicidehadsimplybecomea replacementexcuse formen’s violenceagainstwomen(CapperandCrooks2010:21;Howe2010).The2010reviewwasputonholdfollowingachangeingovernment.Theincominggovernmentreiteratedtheseconcernswiththe



operation of defensive homicide. In 2013 submissions were invited in response to a VDoJconsultationpaper,whichproposedabolitionofdefensivehomicideonthegroundthatitwasbeing‘inappropriately…relieduponbymenwhokill…incircumstanceswhichareverysimilarto thosewhereprovocationpreviously applied’. It found that ‘[t]heprice of having defensivehomicideforthecomparativelysmallnumberofwomenwhokillissubstantiallyoutweighedbythecostofinappropriatelyexcusingmenwhokill’(VDoJ2013:viii‐ix).A substantial joint submissionbyDVRCV,MonashUniversity, FederationofCommunityLegalCentresandtheVictorianWomen’sTrustendorsedby14women’sadvocacygroupschallengedtheseassumptionsandarguedforretentionofdefensivehomicide:

Our starting point is that women who kill to protect themselves from familyviolence should have access to a full acquittal on the grounds of self‐defence.However,basedonrecentresearchthatexaminedindetailcasesofwomenwhohavekilledpartnerssincethe2005reforms,wedonotyethavesufficientevidenceto show that self‐defence can readily be raised by female defendants at trial.(DomesticViolenceResourceCentreVictoria,MonashUniversityetal.2013:1‐2)4

Nonetheless,theCrimesAmendment(AbolitionofDefensiveHomicide)Act2014(Vic)cameintooperationon9September2014.The most substantial change for present purposes was the foreshadowed removal of thedefensive homicide offence, in s 3 of the amending act. The Minister stated that defensivehomicide has ‘predominantly been relied on by men who have killed other men in violentconfrontations, often with the use of a weapon and often involving the infliction of horrificinjuries’,whichhadledto‘justifiablecommunityconcernthatthelaw,likeprovocationoncedid,isallowingoffendersto“getawaywithmurder”’(ParliamentofVictoria2014).ThelegislationmadeseveralotherchangesincludingshiftingalltheprovisionstoadifferentpartoftheCrimesAct1958(Vic)withconsequentialrenumbering;self‐defencewasalsoreformulatedtorequireabeliefthattheconductwas‘necessaryinself‐defence’(s322K(2)(a))andtheconductwasa‘reasonableresponseinthecircumstancesasthepersonperceivesthem’(s322K(2)(b))(ratherthanhavingtoshow‘reasonablegroundsforthebelief’).Itwasmadeclearthatapersonmayclaimtohaveactedinself‐defence,forexample,inorderto‘preventorterminate…unlawfuldeprivation’(s322Knote2),ascenariowhichhaspreviouslybeennotedaspotentiallyrelevantforvictimsoffamilyviolence.Theapplicationofthedefencetoanintoxicatedpersonwasalsoclarified(s322T).Thepotentialrelevanceoffamilyviolencetoself‐defencewasdevelopedbasedonthepreviouss9AH,withtheconceptoffamilyviolencenowbeingdefinedins322J.Ifraisedinanargumentbasedonself‐defence,familyviolenceevidenceisstatedtohavepossiblerelevancebothtoissuesof immediacy and proportionality of the action, and to both the subjective and the objectiveelementsofthedefence(s322M).5Tofacilitatetheeffectivenessoftheseprovisionsattrial,the2014amendmentsalsoprovidedfordirectionstothejuryonhowfamilyviolenceevidencemayberelevanttothedefencesofself‐defenceandduress,andtoexplainthescopeandsignificanceoffamilyviolence.Forexamplethejudge may explain that family violence is not limited to physical abuse; that people reactdifferentlytoexperiencingfamilyviolence;andthatitisnotuncommonforavictimtostaywiththeabusivepartnerandnottoreporttheviolence.ThesedirectionswereincorporatedintotheJuryDirectionsAct2013(Vic)inss32(6)and32(7)respectively(nowss59and60JuryDirectionsAct2015(Vic)).



Notsurprisingly,thewayinwhichwomenandmendrewonthelawreformsof2005wasverydifferent,butwasseenasraisingdifferentconcerns.Theseareconsideredinturn.Femaledefendants

In2012,ateamofresearchersfromtheDomesticViolenceResourceCentreVictoria(DVRCV),andMonashUniversitycommencedastudyofintimatepartnerhomicidescommittedbywomenandprosecutedinVictoriabetweentheintroductionofthereformson23November2005and1October2013(seeKirkwood,McKenzieandTyson2013).6Thestudyfoundthat,althoughthelegislativechangesprovidedthepotentialforprogress,therehadbeenlimitedevidenceofthisinpractice(Kirkwoodetal.2013;seealsoTysonetal.2015;Tyson,KirkwoodandMcKenzie2016).Ofthesevencasesprosecuted,therewasahistoryoffamilyviolenceinallthecases(seeKirkwoodetal.2013:14‐15),7andallofthewomenwereinitiallychargedwithmurder.Threepleadedguiltytomanslaughter,onepleadedguilty todefensivehomicide, onewas foundguiltyofdefensivehomicide,andonewasfoundguiltyattrialofmanslaughter.Thestudyconcludedthat,althoughthewomenweremorelikelytopleadguiltytomanslaughterordefensivehomicide,thecapacityto introduce a broader range of evidence on family violence was not being utilised by legalprofessionals(Kirkwoodetal.2013:39).Thenewprovisionsins9AHenvisagedexpertevidenceon,forexample,the‘generalnatureanddynamics’offamilyviolenceandthe‘cumulativeeffect’ofsuchviolence,fromgeneralexpertsonfamilyviolenceand‘casespecific’expertevidencetocontextualisethesituationoftheaccusedwithintheframeworkofcurrentknowledgeof familyviolence(VLRC2004:141). Inthecasesanalysed, theonlyexpertevidencehadbeenmoreconventionalpsychiatricandpsychologicalassessmentsofthewomen(Kirkwoodetal.2013:47).Inconclusion,thisstudyfoundnoclearindicationofgreaterreadinessonthepartofthelegalprofessionalstorecogniseafamilyviolencecontextassupportiveofafullacquittalonthebasisofself‐defence,althoughofcoursesomecasesmaynotinthemselveshavenecessarilysupportedsuchafinding.However,thereisevidencethatsomeofthesecasesmighthavebeenappropriateforanacquittal.8Twoareasofreformwarrantmoredetaileddiscussion:theprovisionforcontextor‘framework’evidence;andtheabolitionofdefensivehomicide.ProvisionforcontextevidenceAsoutlinedabove,thereformsintroducedprovisionsstatingexplicitlythatevidenceof familyviolencecouldbeusedwhereadefendantarguedthattheyactedinself‐defence(CrimesAct1958(Vic)ss332M,322J).Theprovisionsalsoextendedtheoperationofthedefenceofself‐defencebystatingthatapersoncouldarguethattheyactedinself‐defencewheretheywerefacingfamilyviolence,eveniftheydidnotact immediately,andeveniftheiractionswere,onthefaceof it,disproportionate(CrimesAct1958(Vic)s322M).Thereformprovisions,therefore,providedthatevidenceaboutfamilyviolencegenerallycanbelegally‘relevant’.Itwasunclearwhetherandwhereopinionsfromwitnessesaboutthegeneralnatureoffamilyviolencewouldbeadmitted.9Inotherjurisdictionstherehasbeendebateaboutwhetheraspecificprovisionforsocialcontextevidenceisneeded,andtheissuehasledtodebatewithinindividualcases;itsformulationinlegislation,therefore,bothvalidatesitandservesanexplanatoryandeducativefunction(seeDouglas2015:98).AstheVLRC(2004:xxxiv)observedinrecommendingthisreform:



Neitherthehonestyoftheaccused’sbelief,northereasonablenessoftheaccused’saction,canbeproperlyevaluatedunlessthejuryisawareof,andunderstands,thebroader context of violence between the accused and the deceased and theaccused’ssituation.

ThestudybyKirkwoodetal.(2013)emphasisedtheimportanceofsocialcontextevidencenotjusttoexplainthesituationbutalsotoshowthatawomanmaykillinself‐defenceasanactofagencyequivalenttothatofthetraditionalmaledefendinghimselfagainstanassailant.TheVictorianreformprovisionsalsoencouragedtheintroductionofthisevidencebyabroaderrangeoffamilyviolenceexpertsbut,untilrecently,theuseofthefamilyviolenceprovisionsandintroductionofsocialcontextevidencehasbeenlimited.AreviewofVictorianandQueenslandcasesbyDouglas(2012:377)identifiedthecontinuingimpactofthestereotypical‘real’batteredwomanandconcludedthat‘itremainsverydifficultforbatteredwomentomeetthethresholdrequiredtosucceedinaclaimofself‐defence’.Thosecasesresultinginanacquittalonthebasisofself‐defencewereofwomenwhometthe‘benchmark’ofbeing‘smallerthantheirpartners,white,drug‐free,monogamousandwithoutacriminalrecord’,and‘sufferedfiercephysicalabuseovermanyyears’.10Commentatorspointed toa tendency forcases toemphasise thewoman’sbehaviourasirrationalorhelpless,moreinlinewithaBWSanalysis,ratherthanasa‘rational’orreasonableresponsetothesituation(Douglas2015:102;Kirkwoodetal.2013:45‐46;Tysonetal.2016:16).TherecentcasesofDPPvBracken[2014]VSC94andDPPvWilliams[2014]VSC304werethefirst to use the social context provisions (at that time s 9AH) from different family violenceexperts.PhillipBrackenwasacquittedofthemurderofhisfemalepartneraftershootingherfivetimeswitha rifle atpoint‐blank range (DPPvBracken [2014]VSC94). InBracken itwasnotdisputedthathispartnersufferedfromseveralseriousmentalhealthissues,regularlyverballyabusedhimandsometimesphysicallyabusedhimduringtheirfour‐yearrelationship,andhadthreatenedBrackenandhisfatheronthedayofthekilling(Collom2015:19).Expertevidencewasadducedatthetrialbyaforensicpsychiatristwhogavegeneralandspecificsocialframeworkevidenceonthe‘psychologicalentrapment’whichmayencourageavictimtostayinanabusiverelationship(Collom2015:29).TheapproachwasthereforenotdissimilartoatraditionalBWScase.Soonafter,AngelaWilliamswaschargedwithmurderaftershekilledherpartnerbyhittinghim16timeswithapick‐axe.Shewasacquittedofmurderbutfoundguiltyofdefensivehomicide(DPPvWilliams[2014]VSC304).Williamshadkilledherpartnerandburiedhisbodyin2008;sheconfessedtothekillingfouryearslater.InWilliamsitwasnotdisputedthatherpartnerwasaveryheavydrinker,frequentmarijuanauseranddealer,andwasthedominantcontrollingpartyintherelationship,thathefrequentlyverballyabusedher,occasionallypunchedorkickedholesinthewallofthefamilyhome,andhadalonghistoryofinflictingseriousviolenceagainstotherpeople(Collom2015:19‐20).Forthefirsttimeinahomicidetrial,a lawprofessorandfamilyviolenceexpert,ProfessorPatriciaEasteal,gavegeneralcontextevidenceaboutthedynamicsoffamilyviolenceandthewaysinwhichwomenkill,andusedthehostagemetaphortodescribethepsychological reasons whywomen tend to stay with violent partners (Collom 2015: 30). Anincreasingly nuanced understanding of family violencewas evident in both cases. As Collomobserved,thedefenceinBrackenandWilliamsrecognisedthatthedefendantscouldkillinself‐defenceinresponseto:(a)non‐physicalformsoffamilyviolence;and(b)thecumulativeimpactthatthefamilyviolencehadonthem(Collom2015:21).Indeed,thesentencingjudgeinWilliamsobservedthatfamilyviolencecanbe‘belittlingandcontrolling’andcanformapatternofabusethatmay seemminor on its ownbut underwhich the victim can reach a point of ‘explosive’violencethatseems‘disproportionate’(DPPvWilliams[2014]VSC304[26,32]).AsDouglasputit,thisapproachseemstohavebeen‘stronglyinfluencedbys9AH,suggestingtheprovisionmaybehavinganeducativeeffect’(2015:106).



AbolitionofdefensivehomicideDefensivehomicidewasintroducedtoprovidea‘halfwayhouse’fordefendantsfoundtohavegenuinelybelievedtheywereactinginself‐defence,butwhoseassessmentoftheneedtodefendthemselveswasfoundnottobeobjectivelyreasonable.Itwasabolishedin2014becauseitwasseen asbeing too readilyused bymen chargedwithkilling othermen.Anumberof feministresearchersandadvocateswerecriticaloftheproposaltoabolishdefensivehomicide,arguingthatitprovidedanimportantalternativeforwomenwhowereabletoshowthattheygenuinelybelievedtheyfacedlethalviolencebutwherethejurywasnotsatisfiedthatthebelieforresponsewasreasonable(DVRCV,MonashUniversityetal.2013;Kirkwoodetal.2013;Tysonetal.2016).Thecounterargument is thatwomenwhomighthavebeenentitledtoacquittalmaybemorelikelytopleadguiltytothehalf‐wayoffencetoavoidtheriskofatrialformurder,andthatjuriesmaybemorelikelytoconvictofthehalf‐wayoffencewheretheymightotherwisehaveacquitted,outofcaution.Forexample,Fitz‐Gibbonargues thatbothmenandwomenriskedmissingtheopportunityforafullacquittalwhendefensivehomicidewasavailable(2015:132).TheseargumentscontinuetobemadeinNSWwhichlegislated forexcessiveself‐defenceasapartialdefencefollowingitsabolitionbytheHighCourtinZecevicvDPP(Vic)(1987)162CLR645.Indeed,asToolenotes,thistypeofdefencehasbeen‘inandoutoffavourinAustralianlawsforoverhalfacentury’(2013:478).Thedebateseemstobebetweenprincipledandpracticallaws.Ontheonehand,Fitz‐Gibbon(2015:138)arguespersuasivelythatlaws(suchasdefensivehomicide)shouldnotbeintroducedontheassumptionthatotherlaws,suchasself‐defence,willnotworkinpracticeforwomen.Thereissomemeritinadoptingsuchaprincipledargument.Ontheotherhand,thismaydisadvantageindividualwomenwhofaceamurderconvictioniftheycannotpersuadeajuryofbothlimbsofself‐defenceasaresultofgenderedstereotypes.Thefocusofself‐defenceon‘reasonableness’highlightscontinuingchallengesforsomewomentoshowthattheirbehaviourwas,infact,‘reasonable’inlightofongoinglimitationsinunderstandingoftheconsequencesoffamilyviolence.AsTysonetal.(2015:92)conclude,‘[g]ender‐basedstereotypescontinuetoinfluenceperceptionsofwhatisareasonableresponseinthecircumstances’.Wedonothavetoresignourselvestosuchstereotypes:contextevidenceisintendedtoreshapethosenarrativesbyexplainingthenecessityandrationalityofsomewomen’sresponsestofamilyviolence. Arguably, retaining defensive homicide and reviewing its operation in light of theeducativeroleplayedbytheotherreformswouldhavebeenmoreconstructive.Indeed,asKinget al. have emphasised, theWilliams case ‘indicates that defensive homicide did operate asintended…asasafetynetbetweenmurderandanoutrightacquittal’(2016:175).Maledefendants

Asalreadyexplained,the2005and2014reformsweredrivenbyverydifferentconcernsaboutwomen’sandmen’skillingsofintimatepartners.The2014reformswereprimarilyaresponsetoa perceived overuse of defensive homicide by men, which some believed had the effect ofreintroducingthepartialdefenceofprovocationbythebackdoor(for,example,seeFitz‐GibbonandPickering2012).Belowweprovideabriefoverviewofthedefensivehomicideconvictionsinvolvingmenwhokilledothermenbeforeturningtoadiscussionofcasesinvolvingmenwhokilled their intimate partners, and considering the accuracy of the government’s critique ofdefensivehomicide.MenwhokilledmenBetween2005and2014,therewere33defensivehomicideconvictions;27oftheseinvolvedamaleperpetratorwhokilledanothermanusuallyinthecontextofaviolentaltercation,and20ofthese were resolved by a guilty plea (Ulbrick, Flynn and Tyson 2016: 28‐34). The argumentadvancedinthesecaseswasthatthedefendantfearedthathewouldbekilledorseriouslyinjured,



andsokilledtoprotecthimself;hisgenuinefearwasacceptedbuthisresponsewasregardedasunreasonable.Itshouldbenotedthatkillingsinthecourseofadisputeorfight(usuallybutnotalwaysbetweenmen)areunfortunatelyrelativelycommonformsofhomicide,andcommonlyleadtoaconvictionformanslaughterinlinewiththeHighCourt’sanalysisinRvWilson(1992).Intheabsenceofproofofintentiontokillorcausegrievousbodilyharm,orrecklessnessastodeath/gbh—oftendifficult to show in the context of a fight—manslaughter can be an appropriate outcome andcarriesthesamemaximumpenaltyasdefensivehomicide:20yearsimprisonment.Thiswasnotrecognisedinthedebatesleadinguptotheabolitionofdefensivehomicide(cf.Fitz‐Gibbon2015:135).However,aseparatediscoursedevelopedaroundthese‘onepunch’killingswhich had its own political trajectory (unrelated to the present discussion but discussedelsewhere)(see,forexample,Quilter2014).Thedecisiontoabolishdefensivehomicidewas,therefore,highlycontroversial,onefuelledbywhatUlbricketal.(2016:24)observewas‘apopulist,punitiveframework,claimingthatcurrentlaws were akin to “men getting away with murder”’, and inappropriately using defensivehomicide forkillingbothwomenandmen. InRvMiddendorp [2010]VSC202, commentatorsemphasisedthedefendant’ssignificantlygreatersizecomparedwithhisfemalevictimandthenatureofhisviolenceincritiquingthedecision.11Itisimportanttopointoutherethattherewaslittlecall forreformaboutthecasesofwomenwhokilled,oraboutthe(lackof)useofexpertevidence.12Thequestionthereforebeingaskedbywomen’sadvocateswaswhetherthecriminaljusticesystemhadinpracticefailedtotakeaccountofthewaysinwhichfamilyviolencecouldaffectawomanandtoprovideanexplanatorycontextforherkilling.Indeedthequestionwaswhether it was able to do so, given continuing dominant narratives about family violence(Kirkwoodetal.2013).Thequestionbeingaskedby themediaand lawandorderadvocates,however,waswhetherdefensivehomicidehadbeenaninappropriateexcuseformale‐to‐maleviolence.13MenwhokilledwomenThereformsin2005and2014addressedthekillingsbymenofintimatepartnersbyabolishingtheprovocationdefenceand,nineyearslater,theoffenceofdefensivehomicide.Onlytwocasesinvolvingmale defendants relied directly on the reforms to argue that they killed to defendthemselvesagainst theviolenceof their (female)partner (Middendorp andBracken discussedabove).WhileMiddendorpwaswidelycriticisedasnoted,thedecisioninBrackenwasgenerallyseenasanappropriateresult:itwasthefirst(andonly)casesincethereformstoresultinafullacquittalonthegroundsoffamilyviolence‐basedself‐defence.Thiswassignificant(asidefromthestatisticallyunusualgenderpattern)fortheusemadeofexpertevidenceonfamilyviolence.Theprovisionencouragingexpertevidencefromawiderrangeofexpertsisrelativelynew,anditisclearlytakingtimeforlegalpractitionerstomakefulluseofit.InasecondstudyconductedbyDVRCVandMonashUniversityresearchers14examininglegalresponsestomenchargedwithmurderormanslaughterforkillingafemaleintimatepartnerbetween2005and2014,36men,or 71 percent (n=45) were convicted of murder after pleading guilty or following a trial(McKenzieetal.2016:43‐44).However,theauthorsalsofoundacontinuinguseofnarrativesminimisingthesignificanceofanybackgroundinvolvingfamilyviolence,bothinpleasandtrials,andatsentencing.Commonthemesindefencenarrativesinthisstudyincludedlackofintent(inoverone‐thirdofthecases,theoffenderclaimedthedeathwastheresultofanaccident);thattheoffenderkilledinself‐defence(twomenarguedtheyweretheprimaryvictimsoffamilyviolenceandafurtherfive men claimed the violence was ‘mutual’ and they were defending themselves from the



deceased’saggressivebehaviour);orthattheoffenderhadamentalillnessorimpairmentatthetime of the homicide (in many cases the accused’s poor mental state was attributed to therelationshipbreakdownorrelationshipdifficultiesmoregenerally)(McKenzieetal.2016:90‐91,93‐94).Provocationtypenarrativesalsofeaturedinthecasesanalysed:18ofthemenallegedtheyeither‘lostcontrol’,‘snapped’,‘sawred’orsufferedan‘inexplicablesurgeofemotion’inthemomentspriortothekilling(McKenzieetal.2016:96).Moreover,significantnarrativesthatemergedinthecasespresentedfamilyviolence‘asprimarilyphysicalviolence,asan“angerproblem”,asaresultofalcoholanddruguse,oramentalhealthproblem,as“mutual”oras“outofcharacter”’(McKenzieetal.2016:62).Othernarrativesimpliedanexpectationthatthevictimshouldhaveleft the perpetrator or sought legal protection. The authors concluded that, whilst thesedepictionsoffamilyviolenceareadmittedlyproductsoftheadversarialnatureofthelegalsystemand legal rules in relation to proof and evidence, these narratives nonetheless draw on andmaintaincommunitymisconceptionsaboutfamilyviolence(McKenzieetal.2016:62).Theeffectofthereforms—andchangesinthecommunityandlegalattitudesmoregenerally—aremoreevidentinjudicialsentencingremarks.Whileprovocationwasabolishedasadefencein2005,itcontinuestobearelevantfactorthatthejudgemaytakeintoaccountwhensentencing.Partoftheimpetusfortheabolitionofprovocationwastochallengeitsvictim‐blamingnarrativesandthedefence’stendencytoexcusemen’sviolenceagainstintimatepartners.Inastudyofpost‐provocationsentencingjudgmentsforthe10‐yearperiodsincethereforms,HunterandTyson(2016: 28) found that concerns that the gendered assumptions underpinning provocation’s‘narrativesofexcuse’ formen’sviolencewouldsimplyre‐emergeatsentencinghavenotbeenborneout.Rather, they found that, although sentencingnarratives continue to reproduce thelanguageofprovocation(forexample,thattheoffenderlostcontrol),somejudgesappeartobepickinguponthespiritofthereforms.Onejudgeinparticularwentmuchfurtherthantheotherjudgesinmakingexplicitcommentsaffirmingwomen’srightstoautonomyandequality,inlinewiththereforms.Adoptingabroadunderstandingoffamilyviolenceas‘bothofanemotionalandphysicalnature’,KingJinRvAzizi[2010]VSC112:[18]foundthatthedefendanthad‘treatedherasapersonlackinginindividualrights,andapersonthatmustdowhatshewastoldtodobyyou’(seealsoHunterandTyson2017).Othercommentatorshavesimilarlynotedthatjudgesinpost‐reformcasescanbeseentohaveadoptedthegenderedcritiqueofpowerandcontrolwithinintimaterelations.AsFreiberg,GelbandStewart(2015:65)haveemphasised,this isapatterninjudicialremarkswhichhasbeendevelopingsinceatleasttheearly2000ssoisnotsolelyattributabletothereforms—judgesareof course part of the community and influenced by changing values—but it is likely that thereformshavealsobeeneducative.Therehasalsobeenjudicialandpractitionertrainingonfamilyviolenceanditsdynamics,atleastinVictoria(JudicialCollegeofVictoria2016),whichwouldalsobehavinganimpact.Conclusion

HavetheVictorianreformstohomicidedefencesmadethemmoreresponsivetothegenderedcritiquesoutlinedhere?Nearly30yearsago,CarolSmart(1989)warnedfeministresearchersandactivistsnottobeseducedbythepromiseoflawreformtochangegenderedrelations.MorerecentlyDouglas (2012:378)reiterated that itwill take ‘more thanstatutereform’ to changewomen’sexperiencesofjustice.Ourevaluationofthe2005and2014Victorianreformssuggeststhattheywillusefullydirectandconstrainwaysofincorporatingunderstandingsoffamilyviolenceinhomicidetrials.Theymakeitpossibleforcurrentevidence‐basedknowledgeoffamilyviolencetobecomepartofthepleahearingortrialdecision‐makingforfemaledefendants,atleast.



Theyalsorepresentimportantsymbolicstatementsaboutthesignificanceoffamilyviolenceanditsroleinhomicidesinintimaterelations.Theyspelloutgenderedpowernarrativesinwaysthatwouldhavebeenunthinkable—andperhapsunrecognisable—40yearsago.The abolition of the defence of provocation seems to have been effective in removing thatgendered defence narrative (although recent research identified remnants in some trials andpleas).Thereisevidencethatclaimsbymentohave‘snapped’or‘lostcontrol’whenfacedwithasexualrejectionorwiththepartner’sinfidelityarenotbeingacceptedasmitigationatthetimeofsentencing, with judges using the opportunity to denounce these assertions of masculineentitlement(Freiberg,GelbandStewart2015:143).ThesentencingjudgeinRvNeacsu[2012]VSC388:[43],forexample,stated:‘Yourwifewasentitledtoleaveyou.Youmaynothavelikedthat,butshehadtherighttodoso.’Thereisalsoevidencethattheuseofcontextevidencemaybedeveloping,andwithitthelikelyeducative effect of such information about the occurrence and impact of family violence onwomen’sresponses.Whetherthereformswill, intheshortterm,changethedailypracticesoflawyers and judges is less clear. As some commentators have observed in this area, there isundoubtedlyaneedfor‘comprehensive,consistent,andongoingtraining’forlegalprofessionalstocombatthecommonmythsaboutandbarrierstodisclosingfamilyviolence,includinghowtheuseofexpertevidencemayassistinsupportofadefenceofself‐defence(Tysonetal.2015:92).Most reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities require broader social as well as legalchange,andmanyfailbecausetheyareimposedonanunreceptiveaudience.Itmaybethatthereformstohomicidedefencesarefinallycomingatagoodtime,whenfamilyviolenceishighonthecommunityagenda.Whethertheycanproducefundamentalchangeinlegalprocedureandnarrativesremainstobeseen.Correspondence:BronwynNaylor,ProfessorofLaw,GraduateSchoolofBusinessandLaw,RMITUniversity,124LaTrobeStreet,MelbourneVIC3000,Australia.Email:[email protected]

1Thisisknownas‘substantialimpairmentbyabnormalityofmind’inNSW:s23ACrimesAct1900(NSW).2SeeOsland v R (1998) 197 CLR 316.EvidenceofBWSwasacceptedbytheSupremeCourtofSouthAustralia inRvRunjanjicandKontinnen1991andtheSupremeCourtofCanadainLavallee v R (1990) 55 CCC (3d) 97 whereWilsonJstated,‘Expertevidenceonthepsychologicaleffectofbatteringonwivesandcommonlawpartnersmust,itseemstome,bebothrelevantandnecessaryinthecontextofthepresentcase[ofawifewhokilledherviolenthusband]’(Lavallee v R (1990) 55 CCC (3d) 97:112).

3Seecurrents322J(1)CrimesAct1958(Vic).4Referencingthe2013studybyKirkwood,McKenzieandTyson.5Its application for the defence of duress is similarly spelt out in s 322P. 6DrDebbieKirkwoodandMsMandyMcKenzie(DVRCV)andDrDanielleTyson(MonashUniversity).7Theauthorsidentifiedeightcaseswherewomenkilledanintimatepartner.Ofthese,onewasnotcommittedfortrial.8Commentatorshavenoted,forexample,thewayinwhichthesentencingofKarenBlack,onherpleatodefensivehomicide, framed thenon‐physical violence sufferedbyBlackas ‘limited’ to threats, intimidationandsoon, andfocussedontheimmediateviolenceratherthanhighlightingtheevidenceofapriorhistoryviolenceanditseffectsovertime,suchthatthehomicidalresponsewasseenasdisproportionate–that‘thecumulativeviolenceledBlacktooverreact’,(iewasunreasonable)ratherthanbeingseenasacontextinwhichshemighthavereasonablybelieveditwasnecessarytokilltodefendherself(Douglas2015:102;Kirkwood,McKenzieandTyson2013:20;Tysonetal.2015:10‐12).

9Osland v R (1998) 197 CLR 316:[161],[167]citedinDouglas(2015:95‐96).KirbyJinOsland¸forexample,wascriticalofBWSevidencebutcommentedthatexpertevidenceabout‘thegeneraldynamicsofabusiverelationships’wouldbeadmissibleifrelevantandfromanappropriatelyqualifiedexpertasrelationshiporcontextevidence.



10Kirkwood,McKenzieandTyson(2013:44)confirmedDouglas’analysis,findingthat,‘[i]nthecasesthatweanalysed,noneofthewomen’scircumstancesmetthisbenchmark,andnonesuccessfullyarguedself‐defence.Theauthorsalsoobservethat: ‘Allthewomenwhohavekilledtheir intimatepartnerssincethe2005reformshavedonesointhecontextoffamilyviolence.Whileitmaynotalwaysbethecasethatwomenwhokillinresponsetofamilyviolenceactedinself‐defence,itisconcerningthatnoneofthewomenwhosecaseswereanalysedwereacquittedonthebasisofself‐defence’notingtheapparentproblemofthe‘benchmark’hurdle(Kirkwood,McKenzieandTyson2013:44,citingDouglas2012:377).

11Leader‐Elliottconcludesthatthedecisionwas‘exceptional’,anoutlier(2015:171).12AnexceptionisElderandLee2014.13 Asmentioned earlier, these caseswould probably have been treated asmanslaughter,with the same potentialpenalty.Thispointwasnot,however,takenupinthemediaargument.See,forexample,Hunt2013.

14 DrDebbie Kirkwood andMsMandyMcKenzie (DVRCV) andDrDanielle Tyson and Professor BronwynNaylor(MonashUniversity).

References

BryantWandCussenT(2015)HomicideinAustralia:2010‐2011to2011‐2012:NationalHomicideMonitoringProgramReport(MonitoringReportsNo23).Canberra,ACT:AustralianInstituteofCriminology.Availableathttp://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21‐40/mr23.html(accessed26June2017).

CapperSandCrooksM(2010)Newhomicidelawshaveprovedindefensible.TheSundayAge,23May:21.

CollomJ(2015)Victoria’sself‐defencelawinintimatepartnerhomicidecases:AnImprovement?AcasestudyofBrackenandWilliams.Honoursthesis,MonashUniversity,Melbourne,Victoria.

CroftsTandLoughnanA(2013)Provocation:Thegood,thebadandtheugly.CriminalLawJournal37(1):23‐37.Availableathttps://www.academia.edu/3539674/Provocation_The_Good_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly(accessed25June2017).

DomesticViolenceResourceCentreVictoria(DVRCV),MonashUniversityetal.(2013)SubmissionontheDepartmentofJustice’sDefensiveHomicide:ProposalsforLegislativeReform–ConsultationPaper(2013).Melbourne,Victoria.Availableathttp://www.safesteps.org.au/wp‐content/uploads/2014/11/Joint‐Submission‐on‐the‐Department‐of‐Justice%E2%80%99s‐Defensive‐Homicide‐Proposals‐for‐Legislative‐Reform‐%E2%80%93‐Consultation‐Paper‐2013.pdf(accessed26June2017).

DouglasH(2012)Aconsiderationofthemeritsofspecialiseddefencesforbatteredwomen.AustralianandNewZealandJournalofCriminology45(3):367‐382.DOI:10.1177/0004865812456851.

DouglasH(2015)Socialframeworkevidence:ItsinterpretationandapplicationinVictoriaandbeyond.InFitz‐GibbonKandFreibergA(eds)HomicideLawReforminVictoria:RetrospectandProspects:96‐109.Sydney,NewSouthWales:FederationPress.

ElderJandLeeJ(2014)Batteredwomenloseoutonlaw.TheAge,29June.Availableathttp://www.theage.com.au/victoria/battered‐women‐lose‐out‐on‐law‐20140628‐3b0mb.html(accessed26June2017).

Fitz‐GibbonK(2015)Theoffenceofdefensivehomicide:Lessonslearnedfromfailedlawreform.InFitz‐GibbonKandFreibergA(eds)HomicideLawReforminVictoria:RetrospectandProspects:128‐143.Sydney,NewSouthWales:FederationPress.

Fitz‐GibbonKandPickeringS(2012)HomicidelawreforminVictoria,Australia:Fromprovocationtodefensivehomicideandbeyond.BritishJournalofCriminology51(1):159‐180.DOI:10.1093/bjc/azr060.



FreibergA,GelbKandStewartF(2015)Homicidelawreform,provocationandsentencing.InFitz‐GibbonKandFreibergA(eds)HomicideLawReforminVictoria:RetrospectandProspects:57‐75.Sydney,NewSouthWales:FederationPress.

GraycarRandMorganJ(1990)TheHiddenGenderofLaw.Sydney,NewSouthWales:FederationPress.

HoweA(2010)Anothernameformurder.SydneyMorningHerald,24May.Availableathttp://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society‐and‐culture/another‐name‐for‐murder‐20100523‐w3w0.html(accessed27June2017).

HuntE(2013)Defensivehomicidelawhijackedbycareercriminals,drugaddictsanddrunks.HeraldSun,4October.Availableathttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law‐order/defensive‐homicide‐law‐hijacked‐by‐career‐criminals‐drug‐addicts‐and‐drunks/story‐fni0ffnk‐1226732569460(accessed27June2017).

HunterRandTysonD(2016)Theimplementationoffeministreforms:Thecaseofpost‐provocationsentencing.Social&LegalStudiesVol26(2):129‐165.DOI:10.1177/0964663916666628.

HunterRandTysonD(2017)JusticeBettyKing:Astudyoffeministjudginginaction.UniversityofNewSouthWalesLawJournalVol40(2):778‐805.Availableathttp://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/402_12.pdf(accessed10July2017).

JudicialCollegeofVictoria(2016)AnnualReport2015‐2016.Melbourne,Victoria:JudicialCollegeofVictoria.Availableathttp://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/jcv_annual_report_2015‐2016_web.pdf(accessed26June2017).

KingC,BartelsL,EastealPandHopkinsA(2016)DiddefensivehomicideinVictoriaprovideasafetynetforbatteredwomenwhokill?Acasestudyanalysis.MonashUniversityLawReview42(1):138‐178.Availableathttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2818116(accessed25June2017).

KirkwoodD,McKenzieMandTysonD(2013)JusticeorJudgement:TheImpactofVictorianHomicideLawReformsonResponsestoWomenWhoKillIntimatePartners:DiscussionPaperNo.9.Collingwood,Victoria:DomesticViolenceResourceCentreVictoria.Availableatwww.dvrcv.org.au/sites/default/files/DVRCV‐DiscussionPaper‐9‐2013‐web_0.pdf(accessed25June2017).

LawReformCommissionofVictoria(1991)ReportNo.40:Homicide.Melbourne,Victoria:LawReformCommissionofVictoria.

Leader‐ElliottI(2015)Reformandcodificationofthelawofhomicide:ReflectionsontheVictorianexperience.InFitz‐GibbonKandFreibergA(eds)HomicideLawReforminVictoria:RetrospectandProspects:158‐172.Sydney,NewSouthWales:FederationPress.

MacKinnonC(1987)FeminismUnmodified:DiscoursesonLifeandLaw.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.

MacKinnonC(1989)TowardaFeministTheoryoftheState.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.

McKenzieM,KirkwoodD,TysonDandNaylorB(2016)OutofCharacter?LegalResponsesinIntimatePartnerHomicidesbyMeninVictoria2005‐2014,DomesticViolenceResourceCentreVictoria:DiscussionPaperNo.10.Collingwood,Victoria:DomesticViolenceResourceCentreVictoria.Availableatwww.dvrcv.org.au/sites/default/files/out_of_character_dvrcv.pdf(accessed25June2017).

MorganJ(2002)WhoKillsWhomandWhy:LookingBeyondLegalCategories.Melbourne,Victoria:VictorianLawReformCommission.Availableatwww.lawreform.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Homocide_OP.03.pdf(accessed25June2017).



MugfordJ(1989)NationalCommitteeonViolence,ViolenceToday:No.2DomesticViolence.Canberra,ACT:AustralianInstituteofCriminology.Availableathttp://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/vt/1‐9/vt02.html(accessed25June2017).

ParliamentofVictoria(2014)ResearchBriefNo8July,CrimesAmendment(AbolitionofDefensiveHomicide)Bill2014.Melbourne,Victoria:ParliamentaryLibraryandInformationService,DepartmentofParliamentaryServices,ParliamentofVictoria.Availableat:https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/publications/research‐papers/download/36‐research‐papers/13698‐crimes‐amendment‐abolition‐of‐defensive‐homicide‐bill‐2014(accessed25June2017).

QuilterJA(2014)One‐punchlaws,mandatoryminimumsand‘alcohol‐fuelled’asanaggravatingfactor:ImplicationsforNSWcriminallaw.InternationalJournalforCrime,JusticeandSocialDemocracy3(1):81‐106.DOI:10.5204/ijcjsd.v3i1.145.

SmartC(1989)FeminismandthePowerofLaw.London:Routledge.StubbsJandTolmieJ(1999)Fallingshortofthechallenge?Acomparativeassessmentofthe

Australianuseofexpertevidenceonthebatteredwomansyndrome.MelbourneUniversityLawReview23(3):709‐748.Availableathttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1999/27.html(accessed25June2017).

TooleK(2013)DefensivehomicideontrialinVictoria.MonashUniversityLawReview39(2):473‐505.Availableatwww.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2013/17.pdf(accessed25June2017).

TysonD,KirkwoodD,McKenzieMandNaylorB(2015)Theeffectsofthe2005reformsonlegalresponsestowomenwhokillintimatepartners.InFitz‐GibbonKandFreibergA(eds)HomicideLawReforminVictoria:RetrospectandProspects:76‐93.Sydney,NewSouthWales:FederationPress.

TysonD,KirkwoodDandMcKenzieM(2016)Familyviolenceindomestichomicides:Acasestudyofwomenwhokilledintimatepartnerspost‐legislativereforminVictoria.ViolenceAgainstWomen23(5):559‐583.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216647796.

UlbrickM,FlynnAandTysonD(2016)Theabolitionofdefensivehomicide:Asteptowardspopulistpunitivismattheexpenseofmentallyimpairedoffenders.MelbourneUniversityLawReview40(1):324‐370.Availableathttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/306250701_Abolishing_Defensive_Homicide_A_Step_Towards_Populist_Punitivism_at_the_Expense_of_Mentally_Impaired_Offenders(accessed25June2017).

VictoriaDepartmentofJustice(VDoJ)CriminalLaw–JusticeStatement(2010)DefensiveHomicide:ReviewoftheOffenceofDefensiveHomicide–DiscussionPaper.Melbourne,Victoria:VDoJ.

VictoriaDepartmentofJustice(VDoJ)CriminalLawReview(2013)DefensiveHomicide:ProposalsforLegislativeReform–ConsultationPaper.Melbourne,Victoria:VDoJ.Availableathttp://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/justice+system/laws+and+regulation/criminal+law/defensive+homicide+‐+prosposals+for+legislative+reform+‐+consultation+paper(accessed25June2017).

VictorianLawReformCommission(2004)DefencestoHomicide:FinalReport.Melbourne,Victoria:VictorianLawReformCommission.Availableatwww.lawreform.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/FinalReport.pdf(accessed25June2017).

Women’sCoalitionAgainstFamilyViolence(1994)BloodonWhoseHands?TheKillingofWomenandChildreninDomesticHomicides.Brunswick,Victoria:Women’sCoalitionAgainstFamilyViolence.



CasesRvAzizi(2010)VSC112.DPPvBracken[2014]VSC94.DPPvSherna[2009]VSC526.DPPvWilliams[2014]VSC304.LavalleevR(1990)55CCC(3d)97.MasciantoniovR(1995)183CLR58.OslandvR(1998)197CLR316.RvAhluwalia[1992]4AllER889.RvCrabbe(1985)156CLR464.RvMiddendorp[2010]VSC202.RvNeacsu[2012]VSC388.RvParker(1963)111CLR610.RvRunjanjicandKontinnen(1991)56SASR114.RvWilson(1992)174CLR313.StingelvR(1990)171CLR312.VirovR(1978)18ALR257.ZecevicvDPP(Vic)(1987)162CLR645.LegislativematerialCrimes(Homicide)Act2005(Vic)CrimesAct1900(NSW)CrimesAct1958(Vic)CrimesAmendment(AbolitionofDefensiveHomicide)Act2014(Vic)JuryDirectionsAct2013(Vic)JuryDirectionsAct2015(Vic)

reforming defences to homicide in victoria: another

Documents