000			01982nab a2200289Ia 4500
001			112311
005			20250625151149.0
008			110331s2005 eng
022			_a1173-5864
040			_aWSS _dAFV
082	0		_aTRVF 000095
100			_aTolmie, Julia _92218
245			_aIs the partial defence an endangered defence? : _brecent proposals to abolish provocation _cTolmie, Julia
260			_aAuckland _bLegal Research Foundation _c2005
300			_a28 p. ; 24 cm.
365			_a00 _b0
500			_aOffprint from New Zealand Law Review copied and supplied to HCR by the author.
520			_aThis article investigates the ramifications of the abolition of partial defence under the Sentencing Act 2002. The author contends that the partial defence argument is imperative for victims of domestic violence who kill their abusive partners. Without this defence argument, 'battered defendants' who kill their abusers will be facing murder as opposed to manslaughter charges. The article discusses the complex nature of domestic violence, and how the courts must consider the social, economic and cultural context of murder in this instance. The defence of provocation may be used by defendants to reduce culpability in some homicide cases, and the author argues that this applies in the case of battered women who kill their partners in self defence. However, the defence of provocation has differing interpretations and is often used to normalise male violence towards their female partners. The author suggests the definition of defence of provocation must be clarified in legislation to expunge any misdirection of legal argument.
650	2	7	_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSELF DEFENCE _9518
650	2	7	_9431 _aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _2FVC
500			_aNew Zealand Law Review (1) 2005 : 25-52
650	2	7	_9336 _aLAW _2FVC
773	0		_tNew Zealand Law Review (1) 2005 : 25-52
942			_cARTICLE
999			_c2038 _d2038