Law society supports ‘gay panic’ defence

by |
The ‘gay panic’ defence sparked debate again last week following South Australian Michael John Lindsey’s successful High Court appeal.

The defence, which has been long abolished in New South Wales but remains in South Australia and in Queensland, allowed Lindsey to argue that the victim he bashed to death in 2011 had caused him to lose control by making unwanted sexual advances.

Rocco Perrotta, president of The Law Society of South Australia, reportedly wrote a letter to the Legislative Review Committee, released last week, arguing that the defence should remain available to accused murderers.

“… the High Court in [Lindsey’s appeal] has demonstrated that the partial-defence can and does have regard to contemporary community attitudes and standards,” Perrotta’s letter to the Review Committee from 2 June said.

“It is surprising, therefore, that the occasion of the delivery of Lindsey v R has been met with renewed calls for reform concerning the regrettably coined ‘gay panic defence’”, the letter continued.  “The common law partial defence has a rationale which, when properly explained to the community, would be seen to be acceptable and consistent with social norms.  Importantly, the partial-defence works to avoid an inappropriate murder conviction.”

The South Australian Law Society confirmed this position to Australasian Lawyer last week.  Perotta said while the defence has an unfortunate nick name, he believes it to be an important defence to the course of justice.

“It is unfortunate that provocation has been labelled the ‘gay panic’ defence, as the Law Society’s objection to abolishing provocation is not about homosexuality,” said Perotta. “The current law recognises that people can lose complete control of their actions when provoked. An example would be for an unsolicited sexual advance that triggers flashbacks of child abuse, thus making the object of the advance to react in an irrationally violent way.”

Perotta did note that the defence can also apply to heterosexuals, adding that there are circumstances under which a murder charge should be downgraded to manslaughter.

“Another example is a woman who has been subject to sustained physical and psychological abuse at the hands of her partner, and after another habitual bashing finally ‘snaps’ and kills him.”

“There should remain provision for an alternative offence to murder to be considered for some cases of unlawful killing which, unlike murder, are not premeditated.” 
  • William on 23/05/2016 3:52:15 PM

    Smith quotes:

    “Green's case was long and complicated because of this "gay panic" defence, but finally the High Court voted three to two to allow the argument that his brutal response to a light touch on the groin could, possibly, be seen as an understandable reaction from an ordinary Australian.”

    Recent experience as an observer in a matter involving a bi-sexual female and a hetreosexual male. She received a light caress that was unwanted. The caress wason the back and other areas. I assume that there may have been some groin area touching on the clothes. The male admitted to his touching of the area. She had consented to him sleeping in the same bed together.

    The male admitted to the act. The result was that he received a substantial good behaviour bond and suspended sentence. He was placed on the sexual offenders list for a number of years.

    The female was in signioficant distress for a significant period of time after the event.

    Groin touching amounts to a low range to mid range sexual assault. Its obvious that people do not like others touching them on the groin and that there can be significant psychological pain involved.

    It seems that those opposed to the defence of provocation have decided that people are not entitled to respond or react to such kinds of sexual and psychological assaults by homosexuals. Those kinds of people think that gays are entitled to commit sexual assaults with impugnity.

  • william on 19/05/2016 10:32:35 AM

    When considering the views of others its worth reminding ourselves of how bigotry works.

    In the case of the Nazi’s they attacked the Jews and labelled them “vermin” in order to demean and defame. The attempt to collectively describe the Jews failed to take into account the large amount of diversity of the Jews.

    The Nazis focussed on the fact that Jewish bankers during World War I chose to decline financing the German war effort on the basis that the Bankers could get an extra 1% interest elsewhere. This caused extreme hardship starvation and death on the battlefield. Many German military died including the thousands of Jewish Germans serving on the front.

    Prior to World War II, the Nazi’s propaganda spoke only of the bad things that the Jews did and collectively caused many of the Germans to despise the Jews. The Nazi tactics were intentional and they refused to acknowledge the Jewish German War Heroes of World War I.

    Therefore, when I see feminist and homosexual propaganda labelling collectively others as “homophobes” “misogynists” “eurocentric” heteronormal” and other I am reminded of Nazi bigot methodology.

    Again, When I see only one side of a story told and not the other then once again I’m reminded of Nazi bigotry.

    You will note that opposing views on blogs inferring somehow I’m biased because I provide the side of the story that remains untold are in fact those kinds of people who would only like one side of the story told.

    Its time to stand against those who would label you and others using terms such as “white heterosexual” “homophobes” and/or “misogynist”.

  • William on 18/05/2016 1:52:45 PM

    Thanks Mark. For the main the postings for the gay panic argument are mere defamation and allegations without substance.

    The removal of "provocation" as a defence in mitigation where there are very few instances of it being used raises suspicions that there was another intended purpose for its removal. To that extent I would draw your attention to the Anglicare finding that in the first 12 months of a relationship women would abuse their male partners in 17% of cases and men would abuse women in 8% of cases. (Bear in mind that there exists violence in only 6.4% of male female families. Most people don't have domestic violence issues).

    Verbal abuse and psychological assault are repeatedly used by violent women and should be taken into account. It seems then that the defence of provocation was removed not at the behest of gays but due to feminist extremists..

    As for the gay murders in Adelaide it is clearly the work of a group of pedophiles named "The Family" that has been on the rampage in SA for decades. These murders attacked young men both heterosexual and homosexual. The murders are clearly homosexuals.

    In addition, another rape of a heterosexual by a criminal homosexual has occurred in the military. In fact, even though the military has acknowledged harassment against women and gays it has never acknowledged the largest group of victims namely white heterosexual men that have been sexually assaulted by criminal homosexuals.

    the gangs of criminal homosexual rapists that abound in the military will form part of an impending Royal Commission that will expose that these criminals have found positions in high ranks with immunity from prosecution.

    One of the long time homosexual rapists had been named in the Royal Commission into Child abuse sometime last year.

    All parts of the community recognise rape as a horrible crime and those that commit the offences must be punished. Yet there are those that paint the white heterosexual male as the dominant perpetrators when they have their figures wrong. They don't research mainly due to their blind rage.

    The silence from the media is deafening when it comes to the violence of women against men and children and is silent when gay people commit crimes or are charged with crimes. There were little to no reports on the outcome of sexual assault charges laid against Chief Petty Officer Anne White who was charged with offences relating to sexual assaults and other involving five separate junior female sailors.

    The bigotry of political activists who misrepresent by silence abounds as they endeavour to attack their opposition using hate tactics.

    For thiose whose views are formed only by reading and hearing feminist views you might consider looking at this site that presents more facts relevant to the argument. http://mensrights.com.au/

    As for those who raise the issue of bigotry and homophobia and other defamatory names and rail against my opinions you might consider joing a victims group that is non-biased and found by googling "victims adf abuse facebook"
    That group stands up for men women and gays, muslims and others.

    The undermining of justice by feminist and gay bigots by misrepresentation is a huige obstacle.

  • Smith on 18/05/2016 12:48:02 PM

    Hi Louise, I'm addressing here what you say in your post. My comments were not relating to unsolved murders of homosexual men in Sydney and Adelaide. I acknowledge I haven't asked any gay men whether or not they live in fear of being attacked or killed. I also acknowledge that killing anyone is unconditionally unacceptable and utterly morally reprehensible. I am personally opposed to violence unless in defending injury to myself and would consider sufficient force for myself to push away an unwanted physical sexual advance, obviously not to kill. My discussion comments are intended to be an academic legal discussion, not an attack on the gay community.

    I think there is some truth to your comment that if a "gay panic" full defence existed then more heterosexual gay-hating men capable of murder would potentially try to misuse it.

    I would like to point out a couple of things:
    Firstly, the defence being referred to is a partial defence, downgrading murder to manslaughter, if it is successful.

    Secondly, at least in Queensland where this is topical in the media, a manslaughter conviction can have up to the same penalty as murder, of life imprisonment. I acknowledge there is more discretion available in determining the penalty for individual convicted offenders for manslaughter than there is for murder. However, depending on the circumstances of the death, the maximum penalty can still be life imprisonment.

    Finally I think the benefits created by this defence for the sexually abused and damaged who have used it in the past give the judge the discretion needed to protect these individuals when judged to truly need it. I add again, my personal views are utterly against killing people, I am discussing here the consequences when other, damaged people, kill someone else (whether male homosexual or otherwise) because of the killer's damaged state of mind, and receive some potential reduction in sentence because of it.

    I hope I have made myself clear, and Louise I acknowledge again I have no knowledge of how fearful or otherwise the gay men I know are, as I have never asked them, potentially to my discredit.

    Do you have any further comments on my comment?

  • Louise Steer on 18/05/2016 1:31:00 AM

    What a bunch of homophobes! You should be ashamed to call yourselves lawyers. The "gay panic" defence is based on prejudice against gays and is an excuse for attacking gay men. All the gay men I know live in fear of being attacked or killed. The unsolved uninvestigated police murders of gay men in Sydney in the 80s are the tip of a very nasty iceberg, as are the unsolved gay murders in Adelaide. Gay men are way more in danger from straight men who are insecure in their own masculinity and see attacking gay men for sport as boosting their own weak self image. Where are the protests about that? Silence from the media and the legal profession. Says it all about the interpretation of masculinity in this country.

  • Smith on 18/05/2016 12:08:46 AM

    I might add an example from a legal case involving the defence of provocation, turning murder into manslaughter, from an unwanted sexual advance.

    This is an excerpt from Malcolm Thomas Green v The Queen, firstly from "the age" at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/15/1029113981156.html, secondly a direct quote from the case itself.

    "In the case of Malcolm Thomas Green v. The Queen, finally settled after a High Court appeal in 1997, the defendant explained himself thus, after admitting to police that he had killed 36-year-old Don Gilles: "Yeah, I killed him, but he did worse to me." When asked why he had done it, Green replied: "Because he tried to root me." Gilles had apparently made some unwanted advances to his straight friend, Green, but there was no question of force. Green smashed in his skull and stabbed and beat him to death with a pair of chicken shears. Police said they had never seen such a battered corpse - a comment that reflects something the director of the Institute of Criminology, Adam Graycar, said this week: that murders of gay men usually involve extreme brutality and unusual violence.

    Green's case was long and complicated because of this "gay panic" defence, but finally the High Court voted three to two to allow the argument that his brutal response to a light touch on the groin could, possibly, be seen as an understandable reaction from an ordinary Australian. This opened the way for him to be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. It also endorsed the "homosexual advance defence" - which can now be invoked whenever a gay man is bashed or murdered in this country."

    And from the case itself:

    "

    The Crown attempted to distinguish the present case from Luc Thiet Thuan on the ground that the conduct of the deceased was unrelated to the sensitivity of the accused. The Crown contended that the deceased made a non-violent homosexual advance which was unconnected with the accused's beliefs. Those beliefs related to incidents of heterosexual sexual assault by his father upon his sisters, not homosexual activity. There are two answers to this contention. First, as demonstrated by the passages quoted earlier in the judgment, the advance, although initiated in a non-violent manner, soon became quite rough and aggressive. To the extent that Priestley JA suggests otherwise[48], his remarks cannot be reconciled with the accused's evidence or record of interview. Thus, in the record of interview, the accused said: "He started grabbing me harder I tried and forced him to the lower side of me. He still tried to grab me." In evidence, the accused said: "[H]e grabbed me by both arms and pulled me towards him till there was no room in between us. Then he moved his hand down to my backside, arse. I pushed it away then he slowly touched my groin area that's when I got aggressive and hit him."

    Second, the fact that the advance was of a homosexual nature was only one factor in the case. What was more important from the accused's point of view was that a sexual advance, accompanied with some force, was made by a person whom the accused looked up to and trusted. The sexual, rather than homosexual, nature of the assault filtered through the memory of what the accused believed his father had done to his sisters, was the trigger that provoked the accused's violent response. Viewed in this light, the conduct of the deceased was directly related to the accused's sensitivity. Indeed, any unwanted sexual advance is a basis for "justifiable indignation", especially when it is coupled with aggression[49]. Such an unwanted advance may lay the foundation for a successful defence of provocation."

    I think it is important to consider both sides in this particular case and draw your own conclusions. My own understanding of the case relates to the irrelevance of the victim's sexual preference for the defence applying. The defence applied because sexual conduct occurred, irrespective of the gender of the murder victim. It is not a "gay panic" defence. It is more a "serious sexual or physical abuse in the past leading to an excessive response to the current deadly situation that occurred" partial defence. Please reply if you disagree or have something to add. If you agree feel free to reply as well.

  • Mark on 17/05/2016 11:46:54 AM

    Well argued William! I completely agree with you and don't see any prejudice in your argument.

    Of course someone propositioning someone for sex under normal circumstances should not be the victim of violence and that applies whether they are homosexual or not. The intention of this defence is not to protect people who kill homosexuals but to take in to consideration the psychological conditions of the perpetrator to determine if a manslaughter charge is more appropriate than murder.

  • William on 5/02/2016 10:44:15 AM

    The removal of the defence of provocation by pro-homosexual politicians in most states and territories has been based on a lie. These politicians have taken away a defence available and used by all in the community.

    These kinds of politicians and lobby groups are a danger to society as they intentionally destroy good laws for no good reason at all. What will they do next?

    The basis of their argument is that homosexuals have been discriminated against by heterosexuals and have had crimes perpetrated on them by heterosexuals. But, the homosexual community does not acknowledge where the homosexual community and its members have attacked heterosexuals.

    A current example of the crimes of homosexuals against heterosexuals can easily be discovered in the impending Royal Commission into the Australian Defence Force.

    Over decades 1000’s of members of the Australian Defence Force as young as 13 years of age have been raped and assaulted by homosexuals. The pro-homosexual Defence Force has repeatedly refused to prosecute these criminal homosexuals and those in public office who have concealed the crimes.

    It is clear that rape under any circumstances should result in a gaol term. Yet, the homosexual influence in the Defence Force and in government still refuses to prosecute even when the evidence is overwhelming. (A mountain full of corroborative evidence of hundred of assaults exists capable of prosecuting individuals who are still alive and well. Many victims have successfully approached Defence for substantial out of Court settlements in many instances the one rapist has been identified in excess of fifty times as the rapist and /or assaulter. That homosexual rapist is still alive and remains protected by the Defence Force and Government who refuse to prosecute despite their statutory duty to do so.

    There are serious crimes committed against homosexuals and the majority at one stage was committed by homosexual against homosexual in domestic violence circumstance. But, the majority of crimes of one group against the other in the Defence Force and potentially for that matter in the community are homosexual crimes against heterosexual men.

    Many initiation rites in the Defence Forces involved the homosexual acts of touching genitals and inserting things into anuses. These things are done without consent and are criminal acts where jail terms should be the outcome.

    In the news recently is the case of Evan Donaldson who suffered severely due to an objected being inerted into him. You wil find his story and many others at this reference: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Victims-Of-Abuse-In-The-Australian-Defence-Force/491111244289939

    Despite these facts of homosexual acts against heterosexual people, we find that there is now a trend to attack “white heterosexual males” in our community. Bear in mind that ”white heterosexual males’ have a diversity of views on all and any matters. Many support the homosexual movement and many are anti- homosexual yet the media and government has seen fit to label this group as something undesirable.

    When reading postings anywhere it is an easy job to analyse the writings of individuals, and, those supporting a philosophy of hate are those kinds of people that should be treated with caution.

    Many postings include hate language of a philosophy e.g. feminists blame men for all wrongs and pursue retribution. The hate movement is usually very silent about its own criminal acts and that is done purposely and strategically to impute anger against its opposition. Some of the haters are identified easily by their use of defamation, deprecation, and misrepresentation regularly in their postings. Its dangerous to adopt the bigoted and hateful views of those kinds of people ans the implications mean that they cause more harm to their followers than they do to their opposition.

  • william on 3/02/2016 11:33:35 AM

    Jennifer states:

    “William's comment that "It may be that there is a hidden agenda in that the gay community is seeking to prevent normal response to its own anti-social behaviour" clearly establishes his prejudice.”

    In the legal arena it is well known that when actions raise reasonable suspicions those who commit the actions have the burden to show cause as to why the suspicion should be dispelled.

    The facts in this matter reveal that the basis of the argument to remove the defence relied on a misrepresentation that the defence was only used by heterosexual men in cases against gay sexual advances. In my earlier submission I had presented evidence that this position was incorrect and had no basis on which to rely.

    Those who proposed the errant view knew or should have know that it was untrue. The below references and cases are easily found and reveal that all members of the community have used and have the defence available. Refer: http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_34_vol_provocation.htm

    The refusal to acknowledge the truth about their misrepresentation gives rise to the reasonable suspicion that there is another agenda.

    The following are examples where the defence has been used by other than heterosexual men defending their actions against homosexual men:

    Ahluwalia, R v (1993) CAD, subjected to 10 years of spousal violence and degradation, threw petrol in her husband's bedroom and set it alight, causing his death.

    Burke, R v (1987) D, a religious girl, had an argument on a dance floor with a pest who annoyed her on the stairs. She leaves to find a knife, returns and stabs victim.

    Camplin, DPP v (1978) HLD, aged 15, submitted to anal intercourse by V aged 50, after which V 'laughed at' D. D thereupon killed V by splitting his skull with a heavy pan.

    Ibrams and Gregory, R v (1981) CADD had been repeatedly bullied and otherwise provoked by V within a week before they attacked V in his sleep, to avoid further bullying. V died as a result of the attack that was intended to break V's arms and legs.

    Johnson, R v (1989) CAD and V were drinking at a nightclub. V’s girlfriend taunted D, who proceeded to threaten both her and V himself. When D attempted to leave the club, V poured beer over D and pinned D against the wall, whereupon V’s girlfriend attacked D. D stabbed V with a flick knife, causing his death.

    Jennifer states:

    “He paints the homosexual community in one stroke as having some sort of common agenda to protect themselves against predatory behaviour.”

    There has been little response from the homosexual community in opposition to the defence of provocation being removed. If one analyses the contributions of those who want the defence removed it will be found that there is no acknowledgement that the defence is and has been used by other than heterosexual men where homosexual men had made sexual advances.

    The argument still continues to be used to force and change a law to the detriment of all members of the community.

    Jennifer states:

    “ This article was never couched in terms of a debate on homosexual versus heterosexual lines, so please don't bring your vile prejudices into it.”

    The facts reveal that the argument was always couched in homosexual versus heterosexual term long before the article above was written.

    The homosexual movement relied on an allegation/argument that the defence was merely used by heterosexual men responding to gay men’s sexual approaches.

    The article also refers to “gay panic” defence and that supports the position that the issue was always a homosexual versus heterosexual debate.

    The statement of Jennifer that “...don’t bring your vile prejudices into it..” is a typical feminist response to prevent proper argument and to stifle views in opposition. It amounts to a bullying directive/order to cease making contributions and a defamation that my argument against the misrepresentations of the homosexual community is somehow "vile". My contributions are for all the community interests as homosexual men have used the defence themselves.

    Jennifer’s argument attempts to “flip over” the discrimination against the rest of the community by the homosexual movement and accuse my contribution as being discriminatory. Its a clear illustration of the tactics used by perpetrators probably in reliance on the ancient adage that “attack is the best form of defence”. It is submitted that the blogs of Jennifer and her like are advantageous when analysing the methods used by both groups and individuals to force through their own personal interests.

    It is surprising that the accusations still remain despite all the evidence to the contrary.

  • Louise Steer on 29/01/2016 3:46:03 PM

    It's disappointing that the SA Law Society is so backward, considering that SA in the Don Dunstan days was so progressive on gay issues. The "gay panic" defence is and always has been nonsense. It is used to excuse attacks which would otherwise be considered hate crimes. With recognition of gay civil partnerships and expansion of gay civil rights, it's time the criminal law in all states caught up with modern times and public opinion. Stop gay hate crimes!

  • jennifer on 29/01/2016 3:08:00 PM

    William's comment that "It may be that there is a hidden agenda in that the gay community is seeking to prevent normal response to its own anti-social behaviour" clearly establishes his prejudice. He paints the homosexual community in one stroke as having some sort of common agenda to protect themselves against predatory behaviour. This article was never couched in terms of a debate on homosexual versus heterosexual lines, so please don't bring your vile prejudices into it.

  • William on 25/01/2016 10:23:36 AM

    In other blogs on this forum I have taken the time to discuss the substance and lack of substance in submissions. To that extent I respond to the submission of “xixixi”.

    I draw to your attention that the approach of xixixi is one of no substance but is a submission intended to characterise. The style used is intended to ridicule and mock my contribution and to characterise my submission as one belonging to an undesirable element of the community.

    These kinds of approaches are not new and have been used for centuries. For instance, the Romans took Christians to court to be punished for cannibalism as they had eaten bread and wine during Holy Communion.

    These approaches have been adopted by the Critical Legal School since last century and have also been used by other groups including Nazis and communists. The word that seems popular amongst feminists these days is “stereotyping” it also describes the style of submission of xixixi.

    It is clear that xixixi does not believe in the majority of the community being able to hold their views without being provoked continually by others who hold a minority view. My blog had referred specifically to Christians as they are the largest demographic group in the community (the last census revealed 63% of Australians identified themselves as Christian).

    The feminist’s accusations and defamation in these blogs reveal just how provocative that people can be. The constant verbal abuse against men by a small group of feminists can amount to a psychological assault and can cause reaction. The removal of provocation as a defence from some States denies victims of psychological assault a defence from the sniping mouth that it more common in women than in men. (Anglicare figures reveal that in the first 12 months of a relationship 17% of women abuse/assault their male partners and only 8% of men assault their women partners.)

    To re-state the legal intent of the defence of “provocation” : the defence was designed to give those people who have committed a crime in response to psychological attacks against their personal and cultural beliefs. It is clear that people can be aggravated by a constant unrelenting personal attack. It is clear that the campaign of feminism contains volumes of examples and incidents of provocative hate language against men and the removal of the provocation defence is a clear advantage of the feminist movement.

  • xixixi on 25/01/2016 7:00:41 AM

    William's response is the proof that the only intent of "gay panice" defenense is to protect Christian taliban wagin their pedo-jihad against normal gay people.

  • William on 29/12/2015 10:11:38 AM

    Now that provocation as a partial defence has been proven not to be an “anti-gay” defence there must be some reason why the gay community is actively pursuing its removal. It may be that there is a hidden agenda in that the gay community is seeking to prevent normal response to its own anti-social behaviour.

    I draw to your attention that during the reigns of the ALP in the 1970’s or thereabouts there existed a shop front in Glebe NSW owned/leased by paedophiles. In the window of this shop they had pamphlets that described how to pick up little kiddies in parks and other areas. This provocative (incitement) caused a number of locals to make protests to police and other bodies to close the shop down. The failure to act by the public officials resulted in a group of locals breaking down the front door of the shop to get at the pamphlets and rip them down. The police were called and subsequently the man who broke into the premises and toe down the pamphlets was found guilty and fined $600. It is clear that the defence of provocation should have been available to him.

    (Note: the ALP never closed down the shop and it continued to do its criminal act (incitement to commit a crime) until the Liberals came into power and then it took about five months before the shop was closed.)

    It is also common knowledge that attacking and offending a person deliberately can cause that person to commit outrage. In fact the Charlie Ebdo incident clearly demonstrates that there are limits that can be reached where a person becomes inflamed. Whilst the horrible and disastrous reaction would unlikely have attracted a successful defence of provocation it demonstrates that human beings can be aggravated to such an extent by the actions and words of others to the extent that the aggravation causes a criminal act.

    A further example of the incitement of others to react is shown in Salmon Rushdie’s book (that book is offensive to Muslims). Whilst there are many thousands of books that argue against the Muslim religion this particular book attracted a response. The subject matter was not new and has been expounded in many other books, but, it is clear that the style of Rushdie’s book was deliberately offensive.

    The removal of the defence makes way for elements in the community to aggravate and offend with impunity.

    The removal on the basis of the sham allegation that it is anti-gay means that others in the community have had their own rights removed. In our community the last census indicated that 63% are Christians. It is submitted that the general held belief amongst the majority of Christians (and Muslims and other religious persons) is that homosexuality is a sin. These religious people are entitled to hold their own views and are entitled to be protected from deliberately offensive attacks against their views.

  • Jimmy on 30/10/2015 12:05:58 AM

    Australasian Lawyer forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.
    #peakirony for a page filled with hate speech lol

  • William on 25/08/2015 10:32:57 AM

    “How is the reaction of a woman who has had to endure sustained abuse by a partner similar to a man who was flirted with by a gay guy on a single night?”

    Not all defences of provocation are successful; if you read the English case list you will see that many were not.

    The reduction of the provocateurs actions as only “flirting:” is not always correct. My experience is that some gay people do “harass” others with barrages against heterosexuals. The most common attack is the comments regularly thrown at heteros by gays are that the heteros are actually gay and they don’t know it.

    In assessing the element of provocation the circumstances and facts of the matter are taken into account and if as Caleb stated it is a mere flirting it is unlikely that the provocation defence would succeed.

    The difficulty I have with comments like Caleb’s is that it stereotypes gays as mere innocent victims.

    Gays have enjoyed a protective cloister in all areas of life to an extent not enjoyed by heteros and other groups within society. For example, the Australian Defence Force imminent Royal Commission will be investigating the many gang rapes by homosexuals against other members of the armed forces. These homosexuals and of course heterosexuals in a large number of other cases have remained largely unprosecuted due to the decisions of those in authority. In support, the DART has recently provided women an extension to make an application for the crimes perpetrated against them but men have been excluded from obtaining an extension. Clearly this downplays the homosexual rapists’ role in the crimes that will be exposed during the Royal Commission and which are regularly reported on the internet and in the media. on the basis of the lesser claims permitted by men, figures can be distorted that increase the number of heterosexual rapes in proportion to homosexual rapes.

    It is submitted that a person who had previously been a victim of a homosexual rape should have the defence available to him or her because the defence relates properly to diminished responsibility.

    “Provocation” as a Defence has a correlation with “incitement” which can be a criminal offence when someone is incited to commit a crime. Both are responses of an individual caused by the acts of another.

    It is a clear error of the states that removed the the defence. Likely through pressure placed on the politicians by the gay lobby group.

  • Caleb on 21/08/2015 2:20:09 PM

    How is the reaction of a woman who has had to endure sustained abuse by a partner similar to a man who was flirted with by a gay guy on a single night?

  • william on 20/08/2015 12:39:31 PM

    Dear Lauren,

    you're wrong.

    Please look at the following link :

    http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_34_vol_provocation.htm

    Whilst they are English cases they still reveal two things:

    a. women have relied on the defence

    b. It is clearly not an anti-gay law.

    The reality is that it is a real defence and it does not matter that straight men have relied on it. it is available to all.

  • Lauren on 9/08/2015 12:07:11 AM

    This law has only been used to justify the killing of gay men by straight men. It has been abolished in all but 2 states and needs to go completely! It is nothing but an anti-gay law.

Australasian Lawyer forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Name (required)
Comment (required)
By submitting, I agree to the Terms & Conditions