This article aims to assess the recommendations made in the New Zealand Law Commission's Report No 73, 'Some criminal defences with particular reference to battered defendants', released in 2001, about the legal argument for battered defendants who kill their violent mate. Strengths and limitations of these recommendations are identified and elaborated upon. Previously, 'imminence of danger' was fundamental to a self-defence legal argument. However, the Law Commission's report suggested that 'imminence' should no longer be a requirement for a self-defence argument; instead it should be changed to 'unavoidable anticipated danger', and this article discusses reasons in support of this. Additionally, due to the complex nature of intimate partner abuse, the term 'battered woman syndrome' is not inclusive of all the impacts on a victim of this type of violence. Therefore the author supports the recommendation that 'battered woman syndrome' as a defence may not always be helpful for victims of partner violence. Furthermore, the article discusses how a mandatory life sentence for murder can pressure battered defendants into pleading guilty for manslaughter in order to prevent harsher sentencing. The author also supports the Law Commission's recommendation of abolishing this mandatory minimum sentencing. Limitations pertaining to the 2001 report include: the cursory nature of cultural inclusion in these cases; difficulties in determining self-defence; and a discussion of potential pitfalls in reviewing individual cases where women have already been sentenced for homicide. A number of international cases that employed the recommendations, and those that relate to the limitations of the Law Commission's report, are discussed to highlight advantages of the aforementioned legislative reforms.

nz

Waikato Law Review : Taumauri 2002 (10) : 91-114