When Self-Defence Fails

Previously published in K Fitz-Gibbon and A Freiberg, eds. Homicide Law Reform In Victoria: Prospects and Retrospect (Federation Press 2015), pp110-127.

UNSW Law Research Paper No. 17-67

18 Pages Posted: 5 Oct 2017 Last revised: 13 Jul 2018

See all articles by Elizabeth A. Sheehy

Elizabeth A. Sheehy

University of Ottawa - Common Law Section

Julie Stubbs

University of New South Wales (UNSW, Australia) - Faculty of Law

Julia Tolmie

University of Auckland

Date Written: October 3, 2017

Abstract

Feminist efforts to reform criminal defences to homicide have largely focused on expanding self-defence for women who kill their abusers on the one hand, and constricting defences for men who kill their female partners and former partners on the other. Self-defence is the preferred defence for battered women who kill: it is a complete defence; it conveys that the woman’s act was justified; and its elements permit the jury to hear evidence about the experience of battering and the social realities that provide context to the woman’s acts.

Yet self-defence may fail. So much depends upon judicial rulings on the evidence offered by the defence. Jurors may not hear all the testimony about the deceased’s violence or threats (R v Craig). The woman’s claim to self-defence may be hobbled by the fact that she failed to disclose the abuse, seek help or leave the relationship. Women who kill outside of a live confrontation may be denied self-defence even without a formal “imminence” requirement. And, women’s credibility will be challenged by prosecutors who point to evidence of independence or prior violence by the woman to contest whether she was a “real” battered woman who faced lethal danger or rather a batterer herself or even, as some prosecutors propose, someone who chose homicide as the preferred way out of an unhappy marriage. In addition, even on an expansive reading of self-defence, not all battered women who kill do so in circumstances that are a good fit with self-defence.

For these reasons we turn our attention to other complete defences to homicide that may be available to women who kill an abusive partner. These have attracted less scholarly attention than self-defence or provocation, and an assessment of their potential application to battered women’s homicide cases seems overdue. Recent reforms in several Australian states that have extended the defences of duress and necessity to murder, and the novel use of duress in a recent Canadian case, provide added reasons for this inquiry.

Suggested Citation

Sheehy, Elizabeth A. and Stubbs, Julie and Tolmie, Julia, When Self-Defence Fails (October 3, 2017). Previously published in K Fitz-Gibbon and A Freiberg, eds. Homicide Law Reform In Victoria: Prospects and Retrospect (Federation Press 2015), pp110-127.; UNSW Law Research Paper No. 17-67. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3047141 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3047141

Elizabeth A. Sheehy (Contact Author)

University of Ottawa - Common Law Section ( email )

57 Louis Pasteur Street
Ottawa, K1N 6N5
Canada

Julie Stubbs

University of New South Wales (UNSW, Australia) - Faculty of Law ( email )

Kensington
High St
Sydney, NSW 2052
Australia

Julia Tolmie

University of Auckland ( email )

Private Bag 92019
Auckland
New Zealand

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
62
Abstract Views
315
rank
353,311
PlumX Metrics