Controversial provocation law is still being used in Australia

A VICTIM is left dead after a violent confrontation. But their killer will never be branded a murderer. How is this still possible?

Chamanjot Singh, (23), in an undated copy photo. He is wanted for questioning over the murder of his wife Manpreet Kaur, (29), at the couple’s rented home in Westmead on 29/12/2009.

A VICTIM is left dead after a violent confrontation. But their killer will never be branded a murderer.

It is still possible in some states of Australia to use the provocation law to avoid ever being found guilty of murder.

A murder trial underway in the NSW Supreme Court has thrown the controversial law back in the spotlight.

Christopher Cullen has pleaded not guilty to the murder of his estranged wife Victoria Comrie Cullen but but guilty to manslaughter, on the basis of self defence and provocation — a plea prosecutors have rejected.

The rule around the use of provocation were tightened in NSW after public outrage when Sydney man Chamanjot Singh was sentenced to just six years in jail for manslaughter for repeatedly slashing his wife’s throat with a box cutter.

Now it can’t be used in NSW by defendants who kill their partners out of jealous rage or who take offence at a nonviolent sexual advance.

Queensland is the only Australian jurisdiction to have provocation as a defence to a simple assault.

Christopher Cullen pictured leaving the NSW Supreme Court in Sydney. Cullen is accused of slitting the throat of his wife Victoria Comrie Cullen. Picture: Richard Dobson

Victim Victoria Comrie Cullen. Her husband Christopher Cullen has pleaded not guilty to murdering her.

In other parts of Australia, like Western Australia and Tasmania, it has been banned outright while in Victoria the law has changed repeatedly. And hasn’t been without controversy.

Sam Norton, a partner at Stary Norton Halphen in Melbourne, told news.com.au provocation was removed in Victoria and replaced with a law of defensive homicide.

“It was introduced with domestic violence victims in mind so the person who believes they had to kill a person in defence of themselves, who held a reasonable belief of they would die otherwise, would use this as opposed to murder.”

But that piece of legislation was removed too, partly due to its misuse and the subsequent public outrage.

Chamanjot Singh was found guilty of manslaughter, but not murder.

Police forensic teams at the home of Chamanjot Singh and Manpreet Kaur.

“It was seen to be used too often by men rather than the intention of female victims of domestic violence.”

Victoria was now left with the standard common law self defence argument — creating a situation where female victims of domestic violence were exposed to a murder conviction.

“There have been substantial cases in Victoria where women acting against what had been long-term abusive partners wait till there is opportunity — obviously they have to do so when the partner is not in a position to respond because the male is bigger, stronger, more aggressive and violent.”

Previously they would have been protected under the defensive homicide law but now face a murder charge.

“There have been some rough Victoria examples where fellows have planned the killing to some degree and have successfully run provocation and been found guilty of manslaughter. So you understand why that part defence was stripped away.”

Originally published as Controversial provocation law is still being used in Australia