Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Provocation: Geoffrey Palmer responds to Law Soc.

Provocation: Geoffrey Palmer responds to Law Society

Predictably enough, the Law Society is lobbying for the partial defence of provocation to be retained. Or, more precisely, some of its spokespeople are. I know for a fact that others may take a different view, making it debatable that the Society can, in fact, speak as one voice on this issue.

In recommending the repeal of this partial defence, the Law Commission has considered every possible angle. Mr Krebs’ comments, reported in the New Zealand Herald on Friday, suggest that the Criminal Law Committee he convenes may not have fully absorbed the issues. The needs of battered defendants were also invoked, inappropriately in my view. I am anxious to respond. Hearts have prevailed over minds before in this long-running debate, and the interests of justice have not been served by it.

The sole function of provocation, when successful, is to reduce a murder conviction to manslaughter. Historically, this was because murder resulted in capital punishment, or more recently life imprisonment. The sentence for it was mandatory, which was considered unjust in some cases. Since 2002, that is no longer true in New Zealand. The Sentencing Act 2002 established discretionary sentencing for murder. If a murder has been prompted by provocation, or any other mitigating motive, judges can sentence appropriately.

Mr Krebs is wrong in his assertion that provocation remains a partial defence in Australia. Australia is a federal jurisdiction: every state has different laws. In both Tasmania and Victoria, which like New Zealand have discretionary sentencing for murder, the defence has been abolished.

So, provocation can be repealed: its reason for existence has been legislated away. But should it be? Does it achieve other desirable ends?

Certainly, an argument can made that the defence does achieve other desirable ends. In particular, some believe that murder is the ultimate crime and, as such, juries should have a function in allocating the degree of blame, by deciding whether a defendant will be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

This is not the forum to explore the merits of this view. Our published report does so, at some length. But in fact, whatever its merits, it does not support Mr Krebs’ argument for the retention of provocation. If the proposition was true, it would be true for the whole range of mitigating factors. Juries, by this reasoning, should be permitted to decide upon them all – mental impairment short of insanity, depression, mercy killing – not merely provocation. In fact, especially not provocation. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that provocation, almost universally, is used to defend an angry response, which is the least deserving of all possible mitigating factors.

Any arguable advantages of the defence need also to be weighed against its palpable disadvantages. Provocation is widely recognised as a troublesome and difficult area of the criminal law. Trial and appellate courts in every jurisdiction have struggled with it. Eminent judges have described the defence as “plainly unsatisfactory”, “an all but impenetrable and incomprehensible mess”, and “a blot on the criminal law”. They have said that it is “beyond reform by the courts”, and “in need of early attention by Parliament”. Like the judges, New Zealand law reformers have been consistently recommending abolition since 1976 – for over three decades.

Our terms of reference for this report specifically asked us to consider the interests of battered defendants. Indeed, we had already considered this, when we recommended repeal on an earlier occasion (in 2001), but we duly considered it again.

There is negligible evidence in New Zealand that battered defendants are benefiting from section 169, and some considerable evidence in the literature that the defence is more often utilised by the same violent and jealous and controlling husbands who are the perpetrators of battering. We reviewed all Auckland and Wellington Crown prosecution murder files over a five-year period. We identified four cases out of a total sample of 81 in which the defence succeeded. Only one of these defendants was a battered woman. The circumstances of her case were far from typical: the defendant had experienced a long history of various forms of abuse, but she bludgeoned her husband to death with an axe not out of fear and desperation in the face of grave personal risk, but immediately after he confirmed that he had commenced a new relationship and would be leaving the family home. As such, the case is capable of being viewed as an example of sexual jealousy. Had the perpetrator been a man, few would have attempted to defend his actions.

A further two cases – that is, half of the successful cases – were so-called “homosexual advance” or “homosexual panic” cases.

Overall, we believe that there is a key point of principle at stake. New Zealand, as a society, should not continue to partially excuse defendants whose angry resort to violence has caused the intentional death of another. New Zealand no longer excuses an angry resort to violence in other legal contexts where the consequences are less extreme, such as assaults and domestic disputes. That is not to say appropriate mitigating factors cannot be recognised in provocation cases, by judges, on sentence, as they do for all other offending, and murders in any other context. But people who choose to respond in this way should be accurately labelled as murderers.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Scoop 3.0: How You Can Help Scoop’s Evolution

Entering into its third decade of operation, the Scoop news ecosystem is set to undergo another phase of transformation and evolution.

We have big plans for 2018 as we look to expand our public interest journalism coverage, upgrade our publishing infrastructure and offer even more valuable business tools to commercial users of Scoop. More>>

 
 

Speaking Of Transport: Public Engagement On Wellington Scenarios

“Our work on possible solutions for Wellington’s transport future is ongoing, but has progressed to the stage where we’re ready to share our ideas with the public and seek their feedback to help guide our next steps...” More>>

ALSO:

Parental Leave: National's Time-Sharing Change Fails

National has proposed a change to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill that would allow both parents to take paid parental leave at the same time, if that is what suits them best. More>>

ALSO:

Train Free Thursday: Workers Strike To Defend Terms Of Employment

"They signed up to these conditions a year ago when they got the contract for Wellington's rail services. Now they're trying to increase profits by squeezing frontline workers." More>>

ALSO:

Seclusion: Ombudsman Emphasises Importance Of Monitoring

Disability Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero says that while there have been changes to the Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017 to prohibit the use of seclusion, the report is an important reminder of the importance of regular monitoring of schools. More>>

ALSO:

United Future History: "All Good Things Must End"

'We’re extremely proud of what we’ve achieved over the past 15 years, working alongside the government of the day, both National and Labour.' Mr Light told members on Monday. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The TPP Outcome, And The Hobbit Law

Somehow the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal has come lurching back from the dead – and as predicted in this column last week, the member countries gathered in Vietnam have announced a deal in broad principle, shunted aside until a later date the stuff on which they don’t agree, and declared victory. More>>

Agreeing To Differ: Greens Maintain Opposition To TPPA
“The Green Party has long opposed the TPPA. The new proposed deal, which came out of the weekend’s talks, still contains key ISDS concessions to corporations that put our democracy at risk, so our position remains the same,” said Green Party trade spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman. More>>

ALSO:

Monitoring Report: A New Chapter For Children’s Rights In New Zealand?

The Children’s Commissioner is calling on the country to embrace children’s rights to ensure their overall well-being. More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured InfoPages

Opening the Election