Did Defensive Homicide in Victoria Provide a Safety Net for Battered Women Who Kill: A Case Study Analysis

Charlotte King, Lorana BARTELS, Patricia EASTEAL, Anthony Hopkins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article seeks to draw conclusions about the potential impact of the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 (Vic). We do so by considering whether defensive homicide served as a safety net in the 2014 case of Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Williams. The article presents a detailed analysis of the trial transcript and sentencing remarks to support the contention that the defence did in fact achieve this purpose. The conclusion rests, principally, upon understanding the jury finding that Williams killed in the belief that her actions were necessary for her own protection, but apparently determined that she had no reasonable grounds for that belief (thereby failing the legal test of self-defence as it then stood). Having looked at how the 2014 legislation also amended relevant evidence laws, and reinforced jury directions to accommodate considerations of family violence, we then consider the implications of these reforms for battered women who kill. We suggest that, in the absence of the offence of defensive homicide, women like Williams may in the future be convicted of murder, even when they kill in response to family violence and with a genuine belief that their actions are necessary in self-defence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)138-178
Number of pages41
JournalMonash University Law Review
Volume42
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

homicide
self-defense
offense
violence
prosecution
amendment
director
legislation
act
reform
Law
evidence

Cite this

King, Charlotte ; BARTELS, Lorana ; EASTEAL, Patricia ; Hopkins, Anthony. / Did Defensive Homicide in Victoria Provide a Safety Net for Battered Women Who Kill: A Case Study Analysis. In: Monash University Law Review. 2016 ; Vol. 42. pp. 138-178.
@article{1ebbd0143d9b40b69934ca2b293dfea4,
title = "Did Defensive Homicide in Victoria Provide a Safety Net for Battered Women Who Kill: A Case Study Analysis",
abstract = "This article seeks to draw conclusions about the potential impact of the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 (Vic). We do so by considering whether defensive homicide served as a safety net in the 2014 case of Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Williams. The article presents a detailed analysis of the trial transcript and sentencing remarks to support the contention that the defence did in fact achieve this purpose. The conclusion rests, principally, upon understanding the jury finding that Williams killed in the belief that her actions were necessary for her own protection, but apparently determined that she had no reasonable grounds for that belief (thereby failing the legal test of self-defence as it then stood). Having looked at how the 2014 legislation also amended relevant evidence laws, and reinforced jury directions to accommodate considerations of family violence, we then consider the implications of these reforms for battered women who kill. We suggest that, in the absence of the offence of defensive homicide, women like Williams may in the future be convicted of murder, even when they kill in response to family violence and with a genuine belief that their actions are necessary in self-defence.",
author = "Charlotte King and Lorana BARTELS and Patricia EASTEAL and Anthony Hopkins",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "138--178",
journal = "Monash University Law Review",
issn = "0311-3140",

}

Did Defensive Homicide in Victoria Provide a Safety Net for Battered Women Who Kill: A Case Study Analysis. / King, Charlotte; BARTELS, Lorana; EASTEAL, Patricia; Hopkins, Anthony.

In: Monash University Law Review, Vol. 42, 2016, p. 138-178.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Did Defensive Homicide in Victoria Provide a Safety Net for Battered Women Who Kill: A Case Study Analysis

AU - King, Charlotte

AU - BARTELS, Lorana

AU - EASTEAL, Patricia

AU - Hopkins, Anthony

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - This article seeks to draw conclusions about the potential impact of the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 (Vic). We do so by considering whether defensive homicide served as a safety net in the 2014 case of Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Williams. The article presents a detailed analysis of the trial transcript and sentencing remarks to support the contention that the defence did in fact achieve this purpose. The conclusion rests, principally, upon understanding the jury finding that Williams killed in the belief that her actions were necessary for her own protection, but apparently determined that she had no reasonable grounds for that belief (thereby failing the legal test of self-defence as it then stood). Having looked at how the 2014 legislation also amended relevant evidence laws, and reinforced jury directions to accommodate considerations of family violence, we then consider the implications of these reforms for battered women who kill. We suggest that, in the absence of the offence of defensive homicide, women like Williams may in the future be convicted of murder, even when they kill in response to family violence and with a genuine belief that their actions are necessary in self-defence.

AB - This article seeks to draw conclusions about the potential impact of the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 (Vic). We do so by considering whether defensive homicide served as a safety net in the 2014 case of Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Williams. The article presents a detailed analysis of the trial transcript and sentencing remarks to support the contention that the defence did in fact achieve this purpose. The conclusion rests, principally, upon understanding the jury finding that Williams killed in the belief that her actions were necessary for her own protection, but apparently determined that she had no reasonable grounds for that belief (thereby failing the legal test of self-defence as it then stood). Having looked at how the 2014 legislation also amended relevant evidence laws, and reinforced jury directions to accommodate considerations of family violence, we then consider the implications of these reforms for battered women who kill. We suggest that, in the absence of the offence of defensive homicide, women like Williams may in the future be convicted of murder, even when they kill in response to family violence and with a genuine belief that their actions are necessary in self-defence.

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 138

EP - 178

JO - Monash University Law Review

JF - Monash University Law Review

SN - 0311-3140

ER -