Wives
who kill may be spared life sentences
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
Telegraph
- 31st October 2003
Women who
kill violent husbands or boyfriends could escape life imprisonment
for murder under proposals floated today by the Government's law
reform advisers.
In English
law, a person who kills after a sudden and temporary loss of self-control
may be able to rely on the defence of provocation.
If that
defence is made out, the accused person will be convicted of manslaughter
rather than murder and the judge will not have to pass a life sentence.
However,
the law of provocation is in a "muddle", according to
a leading academic. A senior judge said recently that it has "serious
logical and moral flaws".
As a result,
the Law Commission says the defence needs to be reformed by Parliament.
If it was abolished, then the commission thinks the Government would
have to abolish the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for
murder.
Since that
would be politically unacceptable, the commission seeks views on
a revised definition of provocation but concludes that all options
present difficulties.
The commission
says: "On the one hand, there is the need to protect and respect
human life - and therefore not to condone, even partially, the actions
of those who kill through failure to control their emotions.
"On
the other hand, people are sometimes provoked to kill in circumstances
which call for a degree of compassion."
The Law
Commission then considers whether a killing should be reduced to
manslaughter when the killer believes he or she is acting in self-defence
but uses excessive force. If this defence had been available to
the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, he might not have been convicted
initially of murder.
Finally,
the commission considers a defence of pre-emptive force in self-defence,
or self-preservation. This might be used by an abused woman who
kills her assailant while he is asleep, or by a bullied school-child.
"If
a woman in an abusive relationship kills her partner in order to
protect herself from further violence, she may have no defence to
murder," the Law Commission explains.
"But
if her partner in a sudden rage kills her because she has been unfaithful,
he may succeed in a defence of provocation and be convicted of the
lesser offence of manslaughter, even though his culpability might
well be greater."
However,
the commission says there are problems in defining a defence of
self-preservation to exclude members of rival criminal gangs or
paramilitaries.
Harriet
Harman, one of the Government's law officers, said earlier this
month that such a defence "would reflect the long-held view
of the women's movement that women who kill their husbands after
suffering long years of violence should have a new partial defence
to murder".
Mr Justice
Toulson, chairman of the Law Commission, wants comments from the
"widest possible audience" by the end of January.
