Partial Legal Defense Of Provocation In Queensland's Criminal Justice System

The partial legal defence of provocation in Queensland’s criminal justice system exists to protect a person who has been charged with a criminal offence if they were provoked into committing the criminal offence. The defence aims to protect the accused by reducing their sentence if their actions are considered a reasonable reaction to being provoked. The defence of provocation is not justifiable in its current state, as it does not meet the expectations of modern society.

While the defence has already undergone reforms, in consideration of criticisms, these have been ineffective in causing the defence to be fair and justifiable, showing its need for reform. As law of provocation is outdated and was created under different social expectations,

This can be seen in the case of Singh v R. (Sing v R [2012] NSWSC 637, 7 June 2012) In this case the accused was charged with the murder of his wife. The sentence provided would have been for murder, with a mandatory imprisonment time of life in prison, both in Queensland and New South Wales, were the case was heard. He was able to raise the defence of provocation, as he claimed he was provoked into committing the crime because she had been insulting him prior to the offence. The resulting sentence, due to the defence of provocation being raised successfully, was manslaughter, which holds a reduced maximum sentence. This decision was highly controversial, and was criticized as having established a way for criminals to receive reduced sentences despite losing control and reacting to provocation in a way that a reasonable person, in modern society, would not have. This was allowed by the outdated definition of a reasonable person in the defence. The definition of a reasonable person in the defence allowed for the reactions of the husband to be explained, however the responses of the community to the ruling of the case demonstrated a

By reforming the defence, it would allow for a common ground to be met between the opinions of the public and the needs of accused. As shown in the community survey, respondents all indicated a general opinion that despite whether the law of provocation should exist or not, it should not be applicable in the case of verbal provocation. By removing the use of the defence in cases where the accused has been verbally provoked, it would limit the ability of the accused to raise the defence to receive a reduced sentence for reacting to more minor provocation, preventing over reaction and loss of control when unnecessary. Removing the defence in cases of verbal provocation but leaving it in place for cases of physical provocation would suitably defend the rights of the accused, allowing them to react when possibly threatened or provoked to a point at which reaction to the provocation would be considered reasonable. This would be justifiable as physical provocation is more serious, and can often result in violence against the person being provoked, meaning it often requires a more serious reaction from the person being provoked, in order for it to end. As well as removing the defence of provocation in cases of verbal provocation, changing the definition of a reasonable person, and what would cause a reasonable person to respond