R. v. Singh Law Reform
Law reform is essential in achieving justice, particularly in regards to the partial defence of provocation. Law reform refers to the process of examining existing laws, recommending a change in the law, and then implementing changes in a legal system. Our morals and values change every day, simultaneously, our laws must also be altered to conform to what society interprets as having achieved justice. The partial defence of provocation was a very controversial law in Australia as demonstrated in the notorious R. v. Singh case which had to progress through law reform agencies, bodies of law reform who attempt to raise awareness of a flaw in a law and recommend a solution. Subsequently, after law reform agencies has gathered
…show more content…
the attention of the government, law reform mechanisms are instigated to implement changes based on the recommendations made by the agencies of law reform. The R.
v. Singh case was one of the most prominent cases of provocation as a defence in Australia which manifested the urgency for an immediate law reform. This court case involved a man pleading not guilty of murder but guilty to manslaughter, on the grounds of provocation for the homicide of his wife. The man claimed that his wife provoked him, and as a result, she was the reason for her own death and not him. This may seem absurd and blatant to the common individual, but this was a legitimate form of argument before the law was reformed. This individual was successful in abusing a loophole in the provocation defence to reduce his murder sentence to a manslaughter sentence based on the decision of a jury. The provocation defence was based on the questioning of whether an “ordinary” person would have committed the same misdeed when put under a similar circumstance. This questioning is evidently subjective as an “ordinary” person can be interpreted differently by different individuals. Furthermore, provocation defence was commonly used in domestic violence cases, usually consisting of two people. If one person, in this case, was a victim of a homicide, he or she is unable to give his or her perspective on the case. Therefore, the case is immediately subjected to biased views as you are only able to rely on one person’s version of the scenario if there were no other witnesses. This blatant flaw is further reinforced by the fact that there are often no witnesses in domestic violence
cases. In response to the issues raised in the R. v. Singh case, the media and the Legislative Council Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation were the two central agencies of law reform for this case. Following the R. v. Singh case, there was an immense amount of media coverage criticising the provocation defence which attracted the attention of Australia’s population, and consequently, placed pressure on the government to investigate the issue further. In response to the outcry and public pressure, the NSW parliament created the Legislative Council Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation in June 2012, recommending that the law is reformed to eliminate the use of provocation defence in a situation where the victim/deceased has allegedly attempted to end a relationship. Overall, the agencies of law reform and in particular, the media, were very successful in raising awareness and placing pressure on the government as exhibited by the airing of Insight: Provoked on SBS. As a result of the immense amount of pressure placed upon the government by law reform agencies, the government passed the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2014 (NSW) through Parliament, a common mechanism of law reform. This Bill altered and reformed the usage of provocation defence by placing limitations on when and how the defence can be used. Using the provocation defence as an excuse is now much stricter and requires the provocative conduct of the deceased to: • be a serious indictable offence • have caused the accused to lose self-control, and • could have caused an ordinary person to lose self-control to the extent of intending to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. The Bill also ensures that provocation as a defence is denied to anyone who was intoxicated at the time of offence unless the intoxication was not self-induced. In Australia, Tasmania became the first state to abolish the partial defence of provocation in the case of murder which acted by converting what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. The next state to abolish it was Victoria, in 2005; followed by Western Australia in 2008. ACT and Northern Territory have amended the laws to exclude non-violent homosexual sexual advances, in 2004 and 2006, respectively. In Queensland, the partial defence of provocation in section 304(1) of the Criminal Code was amended in 2011, in order to "reduce the scope of the defence being available to those who kill out of sexual possessiveness or jealousy". [1] In 2014, New South Wales law on provocation was amended, that the provocative conduct of the deceased must also have constituted a serious indictable offence. [2] Altogether, the mechanism of law reform was successful in reforming the provocation defence law, with data from Australia showing that the partial defence of provocation that converts murder into manslaughter has been used successfully primarily in two circumstances: sexual infidelity where a male kills his female partner or her lover; and non-violent homosexual advances. [3] The reformed law is successful in achieving justice for the individual and community based on the PEARE and BEARL criteria for an effective law. The reformed law recognises individual rights and is successful to an extent in protecting the rights of the individual. The law is strictly monitored and enforced by the Government of Australia, hence ensuring that the law is enforceable. The new law is accessible to all individuals and is even resourcefully efficient. Cases similar to the R. v. Singh case will now be able to be resolved much quicker and may even not require further investigation by a jury which costs the government money. Overall, the reformed law affects all individuals equally, regardless of differing characteristics and was even able to reflect community standards and expectations. We are able to conclude that the reformed law is fairly effective at achieving justice for the individual and for the community as meets the criteria of PEARE and BEARL to an extent. In conclusion, law reform is a very important process which is essential in achieving justice. This is demonstrated in the reforming of the partial defence of provocation following the controversial R. v. Singh case.
“ First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” (Mahatma Gandhi). Gandhi was born in 1869 in Porbandar. Throughout his life Gandhi helped those in need. He was taught that everyone and everything is holy. He married at the custom age of 19 and went to London to study law. The thing that helped Gandhi promote nonviolence is that he worked his entire life saying that violence didn’t change the way people acted. He lived his life saying that an eye for an eye only made the whole world blind. Gandhi’s nonviolent movement worked because he had something to prove and everyone else in the world agreed with him.
In the Barton vs. Gladue case the jury did not see this as manslaughter, as the jury consisted on most men nine to be exact while only two women (Hunt & Sayers, 2015) who if disagreed with the verdict would be trumped as the majority vote overrules and it is also worth noting there were no aboriginal persons in that jury (Busby, 2015), so how could they identify or understand Gladue better and if that was the case the verdict may have been different. And for this reason we can suspect the power relations between men and women, different cultural oppressions and women whom are perceived as an oppressed group, so Gladue had no fighting
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
In the case of People v. Vasquez, a horrible crime was committed by the defendant, Jesus Vasquez, because he was upset with his girlfriend, Abigail Ramirez, for leaving him and allegedly seeing her ex-boyfriend. Instead of choosing to talk to his ex-girlfriend, Abigail Ramirez, he decided to forcefully break into her home, push her mother down on to the ground, then chase Abigail to the restroom where he violently and horrendously murdered her. There were many primary and secondary victims in this case and left people in pain from his terrible criminal act. Although the defense tries to prove that it was Heat of Passion and that the defendant did not know what he was doing, the evidence proves otherwise. The video shows evidence of shared
In Canadian law it is identified in the background of other defenses, conveying BWS into the courts engages the exploit of well-prepared evidence. It has become apparent formerly that women have been treated in a stereotypical manner by the Canadian courts. Their incidents and requirements were not completely considered. Prior to the 1990 law modifications, there was a gendered structure of the self-defense doctrine that assessed females alongside a male standard of reasonableness. This setback was projected to be put to the end with the Supreme Court verdict in R.V Lavallee . With all these changes, particularly Lavallee, the justice system was effective in becoming additionally understanding to t...
Until the 16th century, Aboriginal people were the only inhabitants of what is now Canada, hence, they were an independent and self-governing people till the Europeans had the capacity to dominate Canada's original inhabitants and possessors (Elias 1). The European Invasion brought about The 1876 Indian Act, which was developed over time through separate pieces of colonial legislation regarding Aboriginal peoples across Canada such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. In 1876, these acts were consolidated as the Indian Act (Hanson). This essay aims to explain how the Indian Act tried to destroy the Aboriginal culture through residential schools and unequal recognition of women, successive acts,
There were three main issues behind the wrongful conviction of David Milgaard, each playing their own role in the ruling. Pre-existing views and perceptions of deviance placed Milgaard among the socially marginalized, making him an easy target for police and public allegations. The broadcast media had a huge impact on public awareness and police actions, presenting a problem with jury discrimination and witness testimony. Finally, and perhaps most inexcusably, misconduct on the part of the Canadian Criminal Justice System in both the investigation and prosecution of the case caused the trial to end in a guilty verdict. If any or all of these factors were more closely investigated or realized at the time, David Milgaard, may not have lost 23 years of his life and this senseless tragedy could have been prevented.
From the Ferguson, Missouri case of an officer “wrongfully” protecting himself to the Texas DWI case involving the father murdering the murderer of his sons, the media helps play a larger role on the scale to emphasize more attraction to the topic of the moment. With the increasing complexity and reach of the law, to nullify is to be a useful tool in a democratic society. However, a verdict should be based on the law as decided by the whole people, not the few who make up the jury of a particular case. Although judges and legal scholars take a variety of positions of the subject of jury nullification, the validity of the practice is said to follow logically from several aspects of our judicial system. In the general, judges are unwilling in most states to even inform juries the option of
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
There are four sources of Law in the Australian Legal System. They are Statute Law, which is made in Parliament, Common Law and the Law of E...
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
The changes needed for the Australian society to be adequately addressed is not the law itself but the consequences in regarding the law because if they were effective than there would be less violence happening but that is not the case.
Frank A. Easterbrook, ‘Legal Interpretation and the Power of the Judiciary’ [1984] 7 Harv. J.L. Pub. Pol’y 87 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/hjlpp7&div=18&id=&page= accessed 14 February 2012. J. A. Holland & Julian Webb, Learning Legal Rules, 6th edn, Oxford 2006, pp. 113-117.
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.