|
|
|
|
Rage out as excuse in killingBy Padraic Murphy October 05, 2005 MEN who kill in jealous rages will no longer be able to avoid murder convictions by claiming they were provoked, under changes announced by the Victorian Government. The move was described by Attorney-General Rob Hulls yesterday as the most significant reforms to homicide laws in 30 years. It means men who kill their partners will no longer be able to have a murder charge reduced to manslaughter by claiming that they were provoked. "If Victoria is to lay claim to a truly just legal system, it cannot condone behaviour that is rife with the stench of male aggression and ownership of women," Mr Hulls said yesterday. Provocation as a defence to murder has long been criticised by victims and legal groups because it has been used in the past by men who have killed their partners to successfully avoid murder convictions. "This Government will not support a mechanism that, implicitly, blames the victim for a crime - one that has been relied upon by men who kill partners or ex-partners out of jealousy or anger; by men who kill other men who they believed were making sexual advances towards them and even by men who kill their own daughters because they believe they have dishonoured them," Mr Hulls said. Jane Ashton, whose sister Julie was killed by her enraged and jealous husband James Ramage, welcomed the reforms. A Supreme Court jury in November last year acquitted Ramage of murder after agreeing he had been provoked and instead convicted him of manslaughter. Ms Ashton said more change was still needed in the "chauvinistic" judicial system. "You have a sister or daughter that's murdered and they're murdered by someone you know and then you feel betrayed by the court system," she told reporters. "The way the defence QCs behave is quite barbaric." The move means Victoria will follow Tasmania as the only states to have abolished provocation as a defence. But high-profile Melbourne broadcaster Phil Cleary, whose sister was murdered in 1987 by a man who served less than four year's jail after using provocation as a defence, said the reforms did not go far enough. "We need to let judges know that women's names cannot be blackened by defence counsels. Some sort of evidence needs to be deemed inadmissable," Mr Cleary said. "Judges need to be put on notice that they can't consider provocation, even at sentencing." Mr Hulls said under other changes to the Crimes Act, a new offence of defensive homicide would be introduced. The offence had been specifically designed to deal with women who killed their abusive husbands. "We recognise a person acting genuinely in the belief his or her conduct was necessary, but who has no reasonable grounds for forming that belief, should not necessarily be charged with or found guilty of murder, but should still be charged with or found guilty of a serious crime," Mr Hulls said. Other changes to the Crimes Act include increasing the age threshold for infanticide from one to two years, and defining for the first time the law of self-defence. The changes follow legislative recommendations included in the Victorian Law Reform Commission's Defences to Homicide: Final Report, which was released in November last year. |