Cases and what happened Flashcards
What provocation act was amended? (iv)
Crimes Act 1900, no 40 section 23
What was the Chamanjot Singh case about?
Singh V The Queen (iv)
Chamanjot singh killed his wife with a box cutter he assumed:
* suspicions of infidelity on his wife’s side
* that their marriage would be ending
* hence his spousal visa would end (also threatening deportation)
Allegedly, his wife slapped him several times as well.
He was charged with manslaughter rather than murder, with the partial defence of provocation.
What happened to cases before the reform which came out as manslaughter? (iv)
As they were before the reform, their case is kept as manslaughter.
What is raising a defence? Who does it? (iv)
If you have good enough reasons for your crime (alleged), with enough evidence and proof you may be acquitted.
Typically a lawyer raises a defence with the evidence they’re presented with, attempting to present their client as ‘not guilty’
What were the main criticisms of the use of provocation prior to the reform? (vi)
There are several criticisms involved with the defence, including that:
- Provocation and a loss of self-control is an inappropriate basis for a partial defence
- That the defence is gender-biased
- That the test for the defence is conceptually confusing and difficult for juries to understand
What was the Harris Hannah case about? (vi)
Hannah V commonwealth
Harris Hannah met Wilson, who told Gilbert to drive her.
Gilbert and Harris Hannah both became intoxicated and had intercourse,
Didn’t come back to their home bc of shame
She confessed and by coincedence, not long after
Wilson and Gilbert met again, (may have cursed, may have been a barking dog)
Hannah grabbed a gun and shot Gilbert twice in the heart
Guilty of provocation with 20 years of confinement.
What was the Mohamad Ali case about? (vi)
R v Mohamad Ali
The deceased was obsessed with Mr Ali’s de facto wife, of which it sexually assulted her and other minor offenses.
The deceased visited Mr Ali’s home, with Mr Ali pulling a gun and firing multiple times towards him.
Argued with excessive self defence and provocation as partial defences, he was found guilty of manslaughter.
Main changes of Crimes Amendment in 2014? (vi)
Limit the usage and reliance on provocation especially excluding
* self-induced intoxication
* Non violent-sexual advances
* conduct incited (stirred up) by the accused as an excuse to use violence against the victim
Substituted section of extreme provocation criteria? (vi)
- A serious indictable offence (an offence punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more)
- Caused the accused to lose self control (a subjective test)
- If an ordinary person would lose self-control to the extent of violence with the intent of
grievous bodily harm or fatal injuries.
Arguments for and against provocation? (vii)
For:
- a person’s moral culpability (full control) is reduced when they have lost control in response to provocative conduct.
Against
- Difficult to understand for juries and others present
- a somewhat inappropriate basis for a partial defence
What was the Lindsay case about? (vii)
Lindsay v The Queen
Unexpected sexual advancement and harassment leads to an extreme example of provocaion, with the appellant fatally stabbing the deceased.
Convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 23 year non-parole period.
