15 September 2009 Media Statement

Parliament should get on with repealing anachronism

Parliament should get on with repealing the “anachronistic relic” of the partial defence of provocation, despite a submission by the New Zealand Law Society that “muddies the debate”, says Labour Justice spokesperson Lianne Dalziel.

Lianne Dalziel said the society’s submission on the Provocation Repeal Bill seemed to be taking the debate backwards, not forwards.

“The society seems to be saying that the defence of provocation needs to stay until there is more work done on what would take its place,” she said.

“Their case seems to be based on the premise that the Law Commission report recommended the Sentencing Council should implement sentencing guidelines to satisfy those who were worried that judges would no longer be able to exercise the discretion they now have not to impose a life sentence for murder.”

Lianne Dalziel said that apart from the fact that National had decided not to proceed with a Sentencing Council, sentencing guidelines were not a pre-condition for the Commission’s recommendation to repeal the partial defence.

“In its submission the society goes on to say that the law should distinguish between degrees of murder, but that is entirely contrary to the Commission's view that this would allow juries to essentially dress up their prejudices as law.

“While the society says that if the partial defence was abolished, juries might convict on the alternative charge of manslaughter based on sympathy for the defendant rather than ‘on rational grounds’, the way the partial defence is used currently could hardly be described as rational anyway,” Lianne Dalziel said..

“All these issues were put to bed in the Law Commission's report and there is no need to put the brakes on reform. We have a great opportunity to get rid of this anachronistic relic and we should get on with it.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media