Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Defences

As a procedural matter D can plead both selfdefence and provocation in the alternative: Chhay;s23(5)

SlefDefence(CompleteDefence)
Notlimitedtohomicidehavegeneralapplication:ZecevicvDPP(1987) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constitutingtheoffenceinselfdefence:s418(1) Amatteroffactforthejurytodecide:DPPvReference(No1of1991)(1992) BurdenofProof ProsmustnegateDsassertionofselfdefenceBRDthatpersondidnotcarryouttheconduct inselfdefences419;Woolmington o ProsnegativesselfdefenceifitprovedBRDthateither(a)Ddidnotgenuinelybelieve that it was necessary to act as he did in his defence or (b) that what D did was nota reasonableresponsetothedangerasDperceivedhefaced. Test:s418(2);Katarzynksi 1. IsthereareasonablepossibilitythatDbelievedthathisconductwasnecessaryinorderto a) Defendhimself b) PreventorTerminateunlawfuldeprivationoflibertyofhimselforanotherperson c) Protect property from being unlawfully taken, destroyed, damaged or destroyed s 420(a)limitsthisifdeathhappens The defence of property has been held to be an insufficient rationale for applyinglethalforce d) Prevent criminal trespass or to Remove person committing it s 420 (b) limits this if deathhappens The defence of property or preventing a trespass has been held to be an insufficientrationaleforapplyinglethalforce 2. Iftherewas,istherealsoareasonablepossibilitythatwhatDdidwasareasonableresponse tothecircumstancesasheperceivedthem? Test(1):Necessity o DeterminedsubjectivelyDmayseektoenlargehisperceptionofthethreatconsider allthecharacteristicsofDatthetimehecarriedouttheconduct Sex Ethnicity Age Religion Violentdisposition PossessionofWeapons(Zecevicsbroclaimedhehadaknife) PhysicalSize(ZecevicthoughtVwasproficientinKarate) StressofthemomentRvJohnson Historyofabuse:OslandperKirby(seebelowforpreemptivestrike) InsaneVictim(Zecevic) o DsIntoxicationisrelevanthere:Katarzynski o Mistake:ItissufficientifDgenuinelyholdsthatbelief If Ds belief was mistaken as to the threat proffered, defence may still be availableifestablishedthe2ndpartofthetest. BUTDsmistakenbeliefmustbesane:RvWalsh Sanenondelusionalmistakenbeliefwillbeused

Provocation(PartialDefence)
SuccessfulrelianceonprovocationasadefencereducesthechargedofmurdertoM/S:S23(1) Jury,DirectionandEvidence Before provocation can be used as a defence, jury must be satisfied BRD that the accused otherwisehascommittedmurder:LeeChunChuenvR(1963);Johnson;Stingel Ifthereissomereasonableevidenceofprovocationbeforethecourtthenthedefencemust belefttothejury:ParkervTheQueen(1964)HCA o This should be decided by interpreting the facts as most favourably as they can be for theD:HolmesvDPP[1946]CA Provocationdecidedbyjury o Judge may withdraw provocation from the jury if there is no creditable evidence supportingthedefenceDaCostavTheQueen o ThispowershouldbeexercisedwithcautionStingel BurdenofProof D bears the evidentiary onus of raising the issue of provocation on the material before the jury:JohnsonvR o Not necessary that he give evidence that he or she did lose selfcontrol: Lee Chun ChiuenvRapprovedinDaCostavR Prosecution needs to prove BRD that the act/omission causing death was not done under provocation:s23(4);StingelvR(1990)HCA o Legalburdenmaybedischargedbyprovingthat: Provocativeconductdidnotexist IntentiontokillorcauseGBHaroseindependentlyoftheprovocativeconduct Provocationwasnotsuchastodeprivetheordinarypersonofselfcontrolinthe wayinwhichtheaccuseddid. ElementsoftheDefences23(2) a) Theremustbeprovocativeconduct(includinggrosslyinsultingwordsorgestures)AND Dmusthavelostselfcontrolasaresultoftheprovocation b) Provocation was such as could have induced an ordinary person in the position of the accusedtohavesofarlostselfcontrolastohaveformedanintenttokill,ortoinflictGBH uponthedeceased Whetherthatconductofthedeceasedoccurredimmediatelybeforeoratanyprevioustime. Test Step1:(a)Identifytheprovocativeconduct,(b)itshouldhavecausedDtoloseselfcontroltothe extenttoformintenttokillordoGBHaactorthetotalityofrelationship Step2:AssessthedegreeorgravityoftheprovocationwithwhichAwasfaced Step3:Decidewhetheranordinarypersonfacedwiththatdegreeofprovocationcouldhavelost controlandformedanintentiontokillordoGB Step1(a):ProvocativeConduct TobeseeninContext: o Thereisnorequirementofaspecifictriggeringevent. Vsconductmayhaveoccurredimmediatelybeforetheactoromissioncausing deathoratanyprevioustime:s23(2)(a) o BackgroundandHistoryleadinguptoDslossofcontrolMUSTbelookedat:Chhay (1994)perGleesonCJ(Killedasleephusband,therehadbeenabuse) o Cumulativeeffectoftheseriesofincidentsmustbetakenintoaccount:Parker Misbehavingaboutthewife,makingherleavehim:ParkervR(1964)PC

MistakeofFact
Onlyforstrictliabilityoffences Evidentiary burden lies on D and Pros bears the legal burden to disprove that defence: WoolmingtonvDPP

10