Killers will lose the right to claim provocation as a defence after murderer Clayton Weatherston's attempt to smear his victim.
It is understood Justice Minister Simon Power wants the controversial defence scrapped as soon as possible and will announce his intentions today.
There's little doubt that the Weatherston case has highlighted this issue, and it may be the one good thing to come out of this dreadful business - the Dom-Post notes:
Mr Power would not be drawn yesterday on Weatherston's use of the provocation defence, as the case remains before the courts until sentencing, which is due on September 15. But he is understood to believe that allowing defendants to besmirch their victims through claims of provocation has no place in the law. He will make his position clear today, and is expected to announce details within the next few days on how the law will be scrapped.
The Law Commission urged the Government to change the law in 2007. It said in a paper that provocation could not be justified as a partial defence and would be better dealt with during sentencing. Deputy president Warren Young said yesterday that the commission maintained that view. Provocation as a defence was outdated and inappropriate.
Given that Labour's justice spokesman Charles Chauvel has already proposed similar legislation, it can be expected that there will be cross-party support for this law change, which is commendable. But most importantly, it will ensure that Sophie Ellioott's tragic death was not in vain.
3 comments:
Stephen Franks says:
"...From this case the judges should take a lesson, and simplify the defence of provocation. It should only relate to what would provoke ordinary reasonable people, not drunks or P addicts or nut cases, or homophobes. The judges should now punish those who turn it into mockery.
From other cases they should accept that ordinary people want the law to distinguish between those who start fights or cause trouble, and those who respond even if their response is “disproportionate”. The criminal should bear the risk of significant disproportionality in the response to thuggery, rape or robbery , even if common sense says the defence can only go so far..."
Enough of this liberal bullshit. Homophobia is not a crime. I generally stay away from gays because owing to the hard lives they live, or at least the ones I've known have lived hard lives, they tend attract petty crime and destructive situations. That's just the way it goes. If homosexuality was veiwed differently by society, perhaps they wouldn't have to live such hard lives, but they did, and what is is really more important than what should be. Especially as far as the law is concerned. But now I find that there is a push from polticians to make me a criminal for not associating with petty criminals because they're gay. I'm not normal for choosing my friends based on what they get up to and what I want in my life. Now it seems, should I get involved with these people to be "normal" or "ordinary", and get into a situation where rape or mortal thuggery may occur, I may not defend myself because fighting back against a homosexual criminal is not "normal. Apparently I'm just like a drunk or P-addict. I don't do drugs or drink. Maybe it's the freedom of choice I exercise that Stephen hates?
Stephen Franks is obviously a retard. He doesn't understand that gay are people too, possessing every element of good and bad as any other person does. They are not automatically a level above heterosexuals int he behaviour stakes just because they're gay.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I allow Franks or another poltician to pick my friends, run my life and assign my values.
Go Figure - Stephen Franks & liberal? thats an oxymoron.
Well Alex, his words are liberal. And if it sounds liberal and pushes liberal, then it's liberal. Just like the National being called a rightwing party when their actions put them left of centre.
Post a Comment