Tag Archives: Gay panic defence

Submission to NSW Parliament Inquiry into Gay and Transgender Hate Crimes Between 1970 and 2010 – 57th Parliament

Posted on by

Standing Committee on Social Issues

NSW Legislative Council

via email: socialissues@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Thursday 30 April 2020

 

To the Committee

Submission re Gay and Transgender Hate Crimes Between 1970 and 2010

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission on the subject of ‘Gay and Transgender hate crimes between 1970 and 2010’ in NSW.

I do so further to my original submission to the inquiry into the same subject, held in the previous Parliament.

I welcome the decision by the NSW Legislative Council to re-establish an inquiry into this important topic, and continue this work, this term.

In this submission, I endorse the submissions already made to the re-established inquiry by organisations that represent the LGBT community in NSW. This includes the submission made by ACON.

Specifically, I endorse ACON’s comments relating to Recommendation 3 of the Interim Report (‘That the NSW Police Force ensure that all officers have the skills and knowledge to engage with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people respectfully and equally’), namely:[i]

The recommendation of the Interim Report relating to the responsibility of the New South Wales Police Force fails to recognise the historical context that this Inquiry examined. We would assert that the NSW Police Force also needs to consider the impact of their policing and its effect on our communities in the past. It is only in conjunction with ongoing reflection on these issues that skills and knowledge will have any effect on the relationship between our communities and the Police.

I also endorse ACON’s comments about the disappointing response to the Interim Report provided by the Minister for Police, the Hon David Elliott:[ii]

ACON believes the response does not adequately take into consideration the overall content of the Committee’s Report on the Inquiry, focusing only on a singular recommendation. The work of the Committee in putting together the Report reflects, to a degree, the personal stories and experiences of community members and organisations. While the Report goes some way to frame these stories in the context of problems with policing and our communities, the response from Minister Elliott downplays these experiences. The brevity of the response, and its ignorance of the full subject matter of the Report, is disappointing…

The crimes that occurred in the past are abhorrent, and the police response to these crimes was negligent at best. These facts are known by our communities. ACON was extremely disappointed that no such acknowledgement was included in Minister Elliott’s response.

Finally, I endorse the call made by ACON for the Committee to seek evidence from NSW Police to assess the four measures that are proposed in the one-page response by Minister Elliott, including how they are being implemented in practice:[iii]

  1. Revised bias crime indicator assessment tools supported by appropriate training packages
  2. A review of internal policies ensuring open-mindedness regarding motive
  3. Ongoing internal ethical and cultural training to specifically include LGBTIQ experiences
  4. Ongoing improvements to ensure bias crimes are centrally captured for state-wide investigations.

I also endorse the submission to the re-established inquiry made by the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby. This includes their comments that:[iv]

The trust to which our community can place in the NSW Police Force will continue to suffer as long as the Force continues to come to grips with its culture of homophobia. As per our previous submission, we want to see ongoing education modules relating to LGBTIQ people as a standard of employment for every employee of NSW Police Force, from the Commissioner down. It is no longer good enough to have a handful of ‘trained’ GLLOs, unevenly distributed across the state…

An individual living in any corner of this state should be able to deal with any NSW Police Officer or any other public service employee with confidence, knowing they will be treated equally and respectfully.

I also endorse the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby’s submission on the need for anti-discrimination law reform to help address homophobia and transphobia in NSW:[v]

[T]he tacit approval of discrimination must be avoided. Anti-discrimination laws, and their exemptions, have been the subject of wide-spread consideration in recent years. The swift public backlash to exemptions which permit discrimination by religious schools against LGBTIQ people are heartening. However, as yet, the GLRL eagerly awaits the removal of these exemptions. The research and lived experiences … demonstrate how discrimination permitted by laws such as the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) contribute to a culture which sees hate crimes committed against LGBTIQ people.

Finally, I support the submission made by the Pride History Group (submission number 15), and draw the Committee’s attention to the personal accounts of homophobia and transphobia, including homophobic and transphobic violence, which it contains.

In terms of my own substantive comments, I have two criticisms of the Interim Report which I would like to make to the Committee.

The first concerns observations, both in the Chair’s foreword, and in evidence provided by Assistant Commissioner Anthony Crandell of the NSW Police Force, that appears to frame NSW Police as passively reflecting the homophobia and transphobia of NSW society, rather than being an active contributor to this discrimination and intolerance.

For example, the Hon Shayne Mallard MLC wrote on page vii that:

For many decades, pervasive prejudices against LGBTIQ people ran deeply in society. Even with legislative change following the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1984, bias attitudes were still being perpetuated within the broader community with a legacy that is still keenly experienced today. The ensuing violence and crime against gay and transgender people, particularly in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, was shocking, abhorrent and all too common. Amidst this stood a NSW Police Force and a broader criminal justice system with a culture influenced by the social values of the time [emphasis added].

Similarly, on page 8, the Interim Report noted that:

While Assistant Commissioner Anthony Crandell, Police Education and Training, NSW Police Force acknowledged that the ‘police force reflected the community and was no different, with culture and values taking far longer to evolve.’

And again on page 45:

In evidence to the inquiry, Assistant Commissioner Crandell acknowledged that historically, the ‘NSW Police Force accepted a culture and society that marginalised people who happened to be sexually or gender diverse.’

He made further comments along the same lines on page 69:

Assistant Commissioner Crandell observed that at no stage had the NSW Police Force indicated that there was ‘no more homophobia, transphobia or that sort of sentiment’ within the force. Rather, he stated: ‘We reflect the community.’ He explained: ‘If we can say that about the community then perhaps I could say that about the police force, but you cannot say that about the community and I cannot say that about the police force…’

The overall impression of these comments is that NSW Police was only ever a ‘mirror’ reflecting society’s homophobia and transphobia back to itself, rather than an organisation with agency that itself generated homophobia and transphobia through its own culture, policies and operational decisions.

I would dispute this ‘mirror’ characterisation in at least two ways. First, the police force is a key shaper of societal attitudes. It plays a role in deciding those rules that are actively enforced, and those that are not (because there will always be far more ‘crimes’ committed than are investigated or prosecuted at any one time) – and this sends a signal to ordinary community members about what are serious breaches of the law versus minor infractions. In this way, the law enforcement actions of police carry a ‘normative’ value.

Indeed, this can be seen in prioritisation of anti-homosexual policing described on page 7 of the Interim Report:

Societal views and attitudes of the time were said to have been compounded by the leadership approach taken by senior policy officers. For example, during the 1950s, the then NSW Police Commissioner Colin Delaney voiced personal views regarding homosexuality that encouraged vigilant detecting and prosecution of homosexual acts and homosexual men by police. In 1958, Commissioner Delaney described homosexuality as “Australia’s greatest menace’; that homosexuals were a “cancer in the community”, who threatened to damage society’s “moral welfare.”

I submit it is impossible to argue that these comments, from the ‘top cop’ in the biggest jurisdiction in Australia, did not have an impact on societal homophobia – especially when it was reinforced by police entrapment and harassment of gay and bisexual men.

The second way in which NSW Police contributed to homophobia and transphobia in society (rather than the other way around), was by failing to properly investigate crimes against gay, bisexual and transgender victims of crime.

While I concede many people at the time may have considered LGBT people to be ‘lesser’ than other members of the community, the actions of NSW Police actually made them so under the law, and therefore actively encouraged others to treat them in the same way.

As noted by the Committee itself on page 35:

Throughout the inquiry the committee heard that police investigations into a number of suspected gay hate crimes during the 1980s and 1990s were inadequate, ineffective and in some cases absent almost entirely, with victims and loved ones never receiving adequate justice.

As described by Mr Larry Galbraith on page 32:

[E]fforts to encourage victims to report were often ‘undermined by the police themselves’, which in turn impacted on the willingness of victims to report crimes. Mr Galbraith recounted a sentiment expressed to him, that going to the police was like a ‘lucky dip – expect it was a lucky dip that too many gay men were not prepared to risk’. He explained: ‘For many gay men, it was sheer luck if the cop you saw took your matter seriously and was willing to do something about it.’

By failing to do their jobs and investigating crimes committed against anyone, irrespective of who they were, NSW Police sent a message to the community that crimes committed against gay and bisexual men, and transgender people, were less serious than crimes committed against cisgender and heterosexual people. That reflects the special role of police in law enforcement, and goes far beyond simply ‘mirroring’ intolerant attitudes.

For these reasons, it was incredibly disappointing to see on page 94 that key sections of the draft Interim Report were removed by Committee members prior to its publication.

This includes the [now deleted] observation that:

The committee accepts the view put forward by a number of inquiry participants that the homophobic culture within NSW Police during the time period examined has significantly obstructed the delivery of justice for members of the LGBTIQ community subjected to violence and hate crimes, in addition to further marginalising a community that already felt ‘rejected’ by many in society’.

Most disappointingly, it involved removing Finding 2:

That the NSW Police Force failed in its responsibility to properly investigate cases of historic hate crime and this has undermined the confidence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) communities in the NSW Police Force and the criminal justice system more broadly.

I strongly urge the committee to make this finding as part of the re-established inquiry.

My second substantive criticism of the Interim Report relates to how it dealt with the issue of the gay panic, or ‘homosexual advance’, defence – or, more accurately, how it failed to properly address this topic.

The terms of reference specifically included the following:

(b) in relation to LGBTIQ hate crimes more generally:

i. what role the so-called ‘Gay panic’ defence played in the culture of LGBTIQ hate crimes between 1970 and 2010,

ii. how the so-called ‘Gay panic’ defence impacted the delivery of justice and the treatment of Gay men during LGBTIQ hate crime investigations and court proceedings

However, despite this term of reference, and Chapter 4 of the Interim Report discussing this issue at some length, the Interim Report does not include any findings or recommendations on this subject.

Even worse, once again strong statements on this subject, including a proposed Recommendation, were removed by the Committee prior to the public of the Interim Report (as noted on page 99 of the Report). These deleted paras stated:

While the Crimes Act 1900 has been amended to finally reflect the recommendations of both the 1995 NSW Attorney-General’s Working Party on Homosexual Advance Defence and the parliamentary inquiry into the partial defence of provocation, the committee acknowledges that there is a ‘gay panic’ defence legacy.

The committee supports the NSW Government’s 2013 directive for the NSW Law Reform Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the law of homicide and homicide defences, as initially recommended by the 2013 Legislative Council Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation to ensure that recent legal reforms have effectively removed any potential for further injustice to occur. The committee therefore recommends that the NSW Attorney General issue a reference to the NSW Law Reform Commission to require it to undertake a comprehensive review of the law of homicide and homicide defences in New South Wales.

Recommendation 10

That the NSW Attorney General issue a reference to the NSW Law Reform Commission to require that it undertake a comprehensive review of the law of homicide and homicide defences in New South Wales to ensure that recent legal reforms have effectively removed any potential for injustice to occur.

I believe that these paras, and the proposed Recommendation 10, were justified on the basis of evidence provided to the inquiry by ACON, Mr Larry Galbraith,[vi] and Mr Nathan Johnstone,[vii] among others.

I strongly urge the Committee to incorporate these comments, and to make a similar recommendation to the deleted Recommendation 10, in its Final Report.

This would highlight the deleterious impact of the gay panic defence, not just on the individual victims whose lives were treated as somehow being less worthy by the criminal justice system, but also the entire LGBT community because crimes against them were seen as less serious than crimes committed against others.

My final comment in relation to the Interim Report is to express my support for the position of the NSW Young Lawyers Human Rights Committee, as summarised on page 50:

The NSW Young Lawyers Human Rights Committee argued that there are limitations to the current GLLO program that need to be addressed. These include:

  • the name of the program creates barriers to access for bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people
  • there are significant gaps in when and where GLLOs are available; and
  • there is limited evaluation of the performance of GLLOs in their role.

Given the perceived limitations of the GLLO program, the NSW Young Lawyers Human Rights Committee put forward three recommendations to improve its accessibility and effectiveness. These were:

  • Changing the name of the program to the LGBTIQ Liaison Officer program
  • Increasing the number of LGBTIQ liaison officers particularly in areas where gaps exist
  • Regularly evaluating the performance of LGBTIQ liaison officers and ensuring adequate support is provided for such officers to perform effectively in their roles.

I urge the Committee to adopt these suggestions in its Final Report. In this way, and provided they are subsequently adopted by NSW Police, it would help to strengthen this program – and, most importantly, to prevent some of the historical injustices heard by the Committee from being repeated in the future.

Thank you for taking this submission into consideration as part of this important inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at the details provided, should you require additional information.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

w1-truthandjustice

ACON’s In Pursuit of Truth and Justice Report, which documents gay and transgender prejudice killings in NSW in the late 20th century, can be found here.

Footnotes:

[i]  Submission Number 12, ACON, page 11.

[ii] Submission Number 12, ACON, pages 12-13.

[iii] Submission Number 12, ACON, pages 14-15.

[iv] Submission Number 14, NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, page 6.

[v] Submission Number 14, NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, page 8.

[vi] From page 61 of the Interim Report:

Mr Galbraith was of the view that the ‘gay panic’ defence ‘helped perpetuate the idea that… somehow the crime was lesser and therefore… should not be treated as seriously’. He added it was likely that the ‘gay panic’ defence fed ‘into a culture where other crimes against gay men should not be treated as seriously.’

[vii] Noting that the following para, describing Mr Johnstone’s evidence, was also removed from the final report:

Mr Nathan Johnstone, Committee member, NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby summarised for the committee the legacy of the “gay panic” defence:

I certainly think that it feeds into the level of distrust or the damage to the relationship between perhaps our community and not just police but perhaps the whole criminal justice system. You have got at least, I think it was, 13 people in about a three- or five-year period… who successfully used this before it was abolished. This is remarkable… That will still breed that culture and fuel that culture of distrust.

Did You Know? South Australia Has Finally Abolished the Gay Panic Defence

Posted on by

Updated 19 December 2020:

It is always enjoyable being able to update these articles when a long-standing goal of LGBTI law reform has been achieved. Which happened in South Australia on 1 December 2020, when it became the final Australian jurisdiction to abolish the gay panic defence.

I am proud of the small role I played in this, including by keeping this issue on the agenda earlier this year (and even having this article referred to in South Australian Parliamentary Hansard – see the end of the post, below), but obviously play tribute to the effective advocacy and leadership of South Australian Rainbow Advocacy Alliance for getting this done (give them a follow on Facebook, here).

**********

Original post (‘Did You Know? South Australia Still Hasn’t Abolished the Gay Panic Defence): 

For those who are not aware, the ‘gay panic’ defence (sometimes referred to as the homosexual advance defence) was a partial defence to murder in Australia.

Part of the broader partial defence of provocation, the gay panic defence applied where a defendant killed another person but claimed it was because they lost control in response to an unwanted, non-violent sexual advance by the victim.

If successfully raised, the defendant would be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder, and generally a lower maximum sentence would be imposed.

If this sounds abhorrent, that’s because it was. Primarily used in circumstances where a heterosexual man killed a gay man, the gay panic defence was nothing short of legalised homophobia.

It told society that one of the most awful things that could happen to a heterosexual man was to be ‘hit on’ by a gay or bisexual man.

It told gay and bisexual men their lives were not as valuable as other members of the community.

Despite this, the gay panic defence was upheld as valid by a majority of the High Court of Australia in the infamous case of Green v The Queen [1997] HCA 50.

The injustice of this outcome was eloquently described by Justice Michael Kirby in his dissenting judgment to that decision:

“If every woman who was the subject of a ‘gentle’, ‘non-aggressive’ although persistent sexual advance… could respond with brutal violence rising to an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the male importuning her, and then claim provocation after a homicide, the law of provocation would be sorely tested and undesirably extended…

Any unwanted sexual advance, heterosexual or homosexual, can be offensive. It may intrude on sexual integrity in an objectionable way. But this Court should not send the message that, in Australia today, such conduct is objectively capable of being found by a jury to be sufficient to provoke the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Such a message unacceptably condones serious violence by people who take the law into their own hands.”

But that was exactly the message that Kirby’s High Court colleagues chose to send. And it sent a message to state and territory parliaments around the country: the only way to end the gay panic defence was for them to amend the partial defence of provocation.

As well as a third and final message to the LGBTI community – that we needed to engage in eight separate campaigns to remove the stain of the gay panic defence from the law books.

Seven of those campaigns have been successful. As with many LGBTI law reforms, Tasmania was the first to act, abolishing the partial defence of provocation entirely (therefore including the gay panic defence) in 2003.

Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland have also chosen to abolish provocation entirely, while New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory have instead legislated that non-violent sexual advances (including same-sex advances) are not a valid defence to murder.

Queensland was the last of these jurisdictions to take action – abolishing the gay panic defence in 2017.

Unfortunately, though, that leaves one jurisdiction that has so far failed to take action. It also means that the use of the past tense, in the introduction to this article, was incorrect.

That’s because today, 2 February 2020, the gay panic defence is still a partial defence to murder in South Australia.

That seems extraordinary – the first Australia jurisdiction to decriminalise homosexuality, in 1975, is the last to reform a law that says a heterosexual man killing a gay or bisexual man who makes an unwanted, non-violent sexual advance towards him is less culpable than other killers.

Of course, LGBTI rights advocates in South Australia have long called for the repeal of the gay panic defence.

The South Australian Law Reform Institute has also recommended this change, calling for the partial defence of provocation to be abolished in April 2018.

The current Liberal Government has even agreed. On 9 April 2019, South Australian Attorney-General Vickie Chapman issued a media release titled ‘State Government moves to abolish provocation defence’, including the following comments:

The Marshall Liberal Government will introduce legislation abolishing the defence of provocation by the end of the year, after announcing today a Bill will be drafted to go out for extensive consultation…

“The fact that an outdated legal position such as this is [sic] still exists is disappointing, to say the least,” Ms Chapman said…

“Cabinet has now approved the drafting of a Bill that reflects the Marshall Government’s response to the [South Australian Law Reform] Institute’s recommendations, and ensure our laws in this area are brought up to date.”

Ms Chapman said key stakeholders – such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Courts Administration Authority and victims’ rights groups – would be consulted on the draft legislation, with a view to bringing a Bill before the Parliament by the end of the year.

Unfortunately, the end of 2019 came and went, but legislation ending the gay panic defence in South Australia was nowhere to be seen.

There does not appear to be any current Bill before the South Australian Parliament to end this abhorrent partial defence. Nor has there been any follow-up media release from Ms Chapman as far as I can ascertain.

Indeed, the only thing that comes up when searching for ‘gay panic’ or ‘provocation’ on the website of the South Australian Attorney-General’s Department is that initial April 2019 release promising reform before the end of last year.

This situation is obviously not good enough. In the third decade of the 21st century, it is simply unacceptable that the law of an Australian jurisdiction still provides that killing a gay or bisexual man who makes an unwanted, non-violent sexual advance is in any way justifiable.

It’s time for the South Australian Government to live up to its promise to end the gay panic defence once and for all. With Parliament resuming this coming Wednesday, 5 February 2020, what better time to get started.

Take Action

You can write to the Premier, or Attorney-General (or both!), calling for them to implement their promise to abolish the gay panic defence as a matter of priority. Their contact details:

The Hon Steven Marshall MP

Premier of South Australia

GPO Box 2343

ADELAIDE SA 5001

premier@sa.gov.au

Twitter: https://twitter.com/marshall_steven

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/StevenMarshallMP/

The Hon Vickie Chapman

Attorney-General of South Australia

GPO Box 464

ADELAIDE SA 5001

AttorneyGeneral@sa.gov.au

Twitter: https://twitter.com/VickieChapmanMP

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vickiechapmanMP/

My own email to the Attorney-General, and copied to the Premier:

Dear Ms Chapman,

I welcome your promise of 9 April 2019 to abolish the gay panic defence (media release: ‘State Government moves to abolish provocation defence’).

However, I note your commitment that this legislation would be introduced before the end of last year does not appear to have been met.

As we enter the third decade of the 21st century, there is no room in the law for this partial defence, which tells society that one of the most awful things that can happen to a heterosexual man is to be ‘hit on’ by a gay or bisexual man.

More importantly, this law tells gay and bisexual men their lives are not as valuable as other members of the community.

With South Australian Parliament resuming on Wednesday 5 February, I look forward to the Government introducing legislation to abolish the gay panic defence as a matter of urgency.

Sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

The following response was received from Attorney-General Vickie Chapman:

21 February 2020

Dear Mr Lawrie

Abolition of the ‘gay panic’ defence

I write in response to your email of 2 February 2020 to myself and the Premier, the Hon Steve Marshall MP, regarding the repeal of the so-called ‘gay panic’ defence.

I acknowledge your concerns that legislation to remove the gay panic defence is yet to be introduced in Parliament. As I have previously made clear, my views are that the gay panic defence is offensive and unacceptable, and I appreciate what the removal of this defence means to so many in the LGBTQI community.

To that end, I advise that officers in the Attorney-General’s Department are working on the Bill to make significant changes to this area of law, largely based on recommendations contained in the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) Report on The Provoking Operation of Provocation.

The defence of provocation is a complex area of sentencing law, and it is important that the legislation to remove the gay panic defence is properly considered. Accordingly, it has been necessary for me to seek expert advice regarding the abolition of the defence in murder cases as well as consider further reforms to sentencing and defences relating to family violence. The potential implications of the removal of the defence are significant and there are aspects of provocation laws that should remain in our sentencing regime, including for example, where domestic violence victims kill an abuser in self-defence.

The Bill will abolish the common law defences of provocation, necessity, duress and marital coercion and substitute statutory defences for necessity and duress. The partial defence of provocation (which has been, in some circumstances, used as a defence to unwanted same-sex advances) will be abolished.

The passage of this Bill remains a priority for the Government. It is my intention to progress the Bill to consultation in the first quarter of this year.

Thank you for your interest in this issue.

Yours sincerely

Vickie Chapman MP

Deputy Premier

Attorney-General

On Wednesday 3 June 2020, the South Australian Legislative Council debated a motion proposed by Greens MLC Tammy Franks calling on the SA Government to take action to finally abolish the gay panic defence.

Liberal Minister Lensink, representing the Attorney-General, reiterated the Government’s commitment to take action, stating “The passage of this bill remains a priority for the government. It is the Attorney’s intention to progress the bill to wider consultation in coming months.”

Which, as the above correspondence makes clear, we’ve frankly heard before. Hopefully this time they follow through, with the full urgency this issue deserves.

On the positive side, the motion, while amended, nevertheless passed and featured the following statement: “That this council condemns the continued existence of the so-called ‘gay panic’ provocation defence for murder.”

On a personal note, it was also pleasing to be cited during ALP MLC Irene Pnevmatikos’s speech in the debate, who referred to this article and the above response from Attorney-General Chapman to my correspondence from earlier this year. Sometimes old-fashioned advocacy can still make a difference.

Screen Shot 2020-06-08 at 1.37.30 pm

An excerpt from Irene Pnevmatikos MLC’s speech during the debate on 3 June 2020.

Chapman

South Australian Attorney-General Vicki Chapman.

If you have enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to receive future posts, via the right-hand scroll bar on the desktop version of this blog or near the bottom of the page on mobile. You can also follow me on twitter @alawriedejesus

Submission to NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Gay and Trans Hate Crimes

Posted on by

Update 31 August 2019:

 

In what was a big news week re LGBTI rights in Australia (see also the release of the Government’s draft Religious Discrimination Bill), the NSW Parliament also tabled the Berejiklian Government’s short response to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Gay and Trans Hate Crimes.

 

Well, a partial response anyway, with NSW Police responding to recommendation 3 only, with a one-page letter including this statement:

“While the Inquiry identified historically negative attitudes from Officers towards members of the LGBTIQ community, I am confident the views and attitudes of the NSW Police Force today towards this community are positive, respectful and professional.”

 

At this stage, the new Parliament (elected on 23 March 2019) hasn’t re-established the inquiry, which was the primary recommendation of the original inquiry (see below).

 

Update 4 March 2019:

 

The Committee handed down an interim report on Tuesday 26 February (just before the issuing of the writs for the 2019 State election). That report can be found here.

 

The primary recommendation (Recommendation 1) is:

 

That the NSW Legislative Council re-establish the inquiry into Gay and Transgender hate crimes between 1970 and 2010 in the 57th Parliament and the terms of reference for further inquiry and report be subject to a decision of the House.

 

This is important, both because the work of the inquiry could not possibly have been completed in the short time available, and also to ensure that evidence of anti-LGBT hate crimes from regional, rural and remote NSW is gathered.

 

The other encouraging recommendation (Recommendation 4) is:

 

That, should the inquiry be re-established consistent with Recommendation 1, the committee invite witnesses to address the issue of the appropriate mechanism for independent review of past gay and transgender hate crimes.

 

Therefore, while the Committee has not agreed to support a Royal Commission at this stage (which was the main recommendation in my personal submission, published below), it has left the door open to recommending a Royal Commission or some other form of independent judicial inquiry in the future.

 

Perhaps just as interesting are the recommendations that had been featured in the draft report, but were removed at the behest of Committee members (as detailed in the minutes of the Committee published in an appendix).

 

Thus (Christian fundamentalist) Labor MLC, Greg Donnelly, moved that the following recommendations be axed:

 

That the NSW Police Force, in meeting Recommendation 3, increase the time currently allocated to the training of new policy recruits in modules relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people.

 

That the NSW Police Force implement a program of ongoing education modules relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people for all officers and other employees.

 

That the NSW Police Force increase the number of specialist Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ) Liaison Officers, particularly in rural, regional and others areas that do not currently have access to such officers.

 

That the NSW Police Force implement a new service to enable lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people to more readily access the services and support of a specialist officer to make it easier to report crimes or seek the assistance of police.

 

Christian Democrat MLC, Fred Nile, also caused the following recommendation to be removed:

 

That the NSW Police Force change the name of the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Officer program to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ) Liaison Officer Program.

 

Meanwhile, National MLC Trevor Khan (who is usually an ally for the LGBTI community) moved that the following recommendations be axed:

 

That the NSW Attorney General issue a reference to the NSW Law Reform Commission to require that it undertake a comprehensive review of the law of homicide and homicide defences in New South Wales to ensure that recent legal reforms have effectively removed any potential for injustice to occur.

 

That the Judicial Commission of New South Wales review the content of jury directions to ensure that they adequately ensure the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people and acknowledge the historical legacy of the ‘gay panic defence’.

 

Thus, while the interim report itself is not bad – recommending further investigation by the next Parliament, and leaving the door open to a Royal Commission or other independent judicial inquiry – it could, and indeed should, have been a whole lot better.

 

Original submission:

 

NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues

 

Wednesday 7 November 2018

 

To whom it may concern

 

Submission re Inquiry into gay and transgender hate crimes between 1970 and 2010

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to this important inquiry.

 

I do so as a long-term advocate for the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, including for the past six years in New South Wales.

 

However, this timeframe means I did not live in NSW during the period 1970 to 2010. I consequently do not have a personal experience of anti-LGBTI hate crimes in this jurisdiction during that period.

 

Nevertheless, I acknowledge and endorse the work of others, both individuals and organisations, who have documented the appallingly high number of gay and trans hate crimes which occurred here over the course of the past four or five decades.

 

This obviously includes the work of ACON, whose excellent ‘In pursuit of truth and justice’ report is cited in the terms of reference to this inquiry, as well as that of journalist Rick Feneley, whose stories over recent years have finally started to give these crimes the attention, and scrutiny, they deserve.

 

And it includes the work of three former NSW Police employees or consultants – Steve Page, Sue Thompson and Duncan McNab – whose work has confirmed the failure by NSW Police to adequately investigate many of these same crimes.

 

This failure can be seen as one reason, perhaps even the primary reason, why, of the 88 homicide cases identified in In pursuit of truth and justice, approximately 30 remain unsolved today.

 

I therefore welcome the initiative of the Legislative Council in establishing this inquiry, to hear from people who have been affected by these hate crimes, either directly or who have valuable information about crimes committed against others.

 

Indeed, this fits with ACON’s recommendation 1.2:

 

ACON recommends the NSW Government, in partnership with community, undertake a process to comprehensively explore, understand and document the extent of historical violence experienced by the LGBTI community.

 

And also with recommendation 4.1:

 

ACON recommends an independent investigation into the actions of the various arms of the criminal justice system to fully understand the impediments to justice during this period in history, their relevance to current practices, and to identify opportunities to finalise unsolved cases.

 

However, I would argue that, while a positive start, a short parliamentary inquiry is unlikely to be sufficient in and of itself to comprehensively address these issues. I form this view on the basis of the following factors:

 

  • The sheer scale, and seriousness, of the subject matter involved, noting that we are discussing at least 88 homicides, with more that may yet be identified through this process,
  • Remembering that figure does not include the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of additional homophobic and transphobic hate crimes that occurred during this period, including serious and violent assaults, many of which have never been properly documented,
  • The role of NSW Police in failing to adequately investigate many of these crimes (both homicides and assaults), and
  • The allegations of complicity and/or even direct participation by NSW Police members in some of these horrific crimes.

 

Given all of the above, I believe that this subject matter should be investigated through a Royal Commission, which would have the appropriate powers, resources and timeframes to fully explore the gay and trans hate crimes which occurred in NSW over the past half-century.

 

Recommendation 1: That the Committee call on the NSW Government to establish a Royal Commission into the issue of gay and trans hate crimes in NSW since 1970.

 

In terms of the ‘gay panic’ or ‘homosexual advance defence’ and the role it ‘played in the culture of LGBTIQ hate crimes between 1970 and 2010’ and how it ‘impacted the delivery of justice and the treatment of gay men during LGBTIQ hate crime investigations and court proceedings’, I believe it did contribute both to helping to incite these crimes, and in undermining their proper investigation.

 

As I wrote to the Legislative Council Provocation Committee in 2012, calling for the abolition of the gay panic defence:

 

In my opinion, there is nothing so different, so special or so extraordinary, in the situation where the non-violent sexual advance is made by a man to another man, as to justify offering the offender in such cases any extra legal protection. In contemporary Australia, a man who receives an unwanted sexual advance should exercise the same level of self-control as we expect of any other person.

 

To have a separate legal standard apply to these cases is homophobic because it implies there is something so abhorrent about a non-violent sexual advance by a man to another man that a violent reaction is almost to be expected, and at least somewhat excused. This does not reflect the reality of contemporary Australia, where, with the exception of marriage, gay men enjoy the same rights as other men, and are accepted as equals by the majority of society.

 

Even if a small minority of people remain firmly intolerant of homosexuality, that does not mean there should be a ‘special’ law to reduce the culpability of such a person where they are confronted by an unwanted homosexual sexual advance. To retain such a provision is unjust and discriminatory, and is a mark against any legal system which aspires to fairness.

 

The above discussion outlines why the homosexual advance defence is wrong in principle. What should not be forgotten is that the homosexual advance defence is also wrong in practice, or in the outcomes which it generates. After all, the defence does not simply exist in the statute books, ignored and unused. Instead, it has been argued in a number of different criminal cases, sometimes successfully.

 

This means there are real offenders who are in prison (or who have already been released), who have had their conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter, and most likely their sentence reduced along with it, simply because they killed in response to a non-violent homosexual advance. The legal system has operated to reduce the liability of these offenders even when broader society does not accept that such a reduction is justified. As a result, these offenders have not been adequately punished, meaning that above all these victims have not received justice.

 

Similarly, the family members and friends of the victims killed in such circumstances have witnessed the trials of these offenders, expecting justice to be served, only to find that the killer is not considered a murderer under the law. Instead, these family members and friends find some level of blame is placed on the actions of the victim, that somehow by engaging in a non-violent sexual advance they have helped to cause and even partly deserved their own death.

 

The painful ‘lessons’ of the gay panic defence, which were learnt over many decades by the LGBTI community, included the following:

 

  • That the life of a gay man was valued at less than that of other victims,
  • That a non-violent sexual advance by a gay man to another man was abhorrent, and that a violent response to such an advance was at least partially justified, and
  • That the law enforcement and justice systems of NSW were not on our side.

 

These same lessons were learnt by the perpetrators of anti-gay and anti-trans hate crimes. They worked out that LGBTI people made for easy targets, both because we were unlikely to report crimes and, even if we did, that NSW Police were unlikely to do anything about it.

 

Based on the behaviour of some NSW Police officers, including reportedly in the 1989 assault of Alan Rosendale, as witnessed by Paul Simes (see Rick Feneley, ‘Erased from the records; Investigation into bashing of gay man by police in Surry Hills in 1989’, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 January 2015), it seems that they too believed the lives of gay men mattered less than others.

 

It is perhaps unsurprising that, when the law – via the homosexual advance defence – said gay men’s lives were less valuable than those of heterosexual people, some members of the law enforcement arm of government acted in the same way.

 

So, while the abolition of the gay panic defence by NSW Parliament in May 2014 was a major step forward for LGBTI rights in this state, we should not underestimate the damage it caused during its (too-many) years of operation.

 

Thank you in advance for taking this submission into consideration as part of this inquiry. If you would like to clarify any of the above, or for additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided.

 

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

 

w1-truthandjustice

ACON’s excellent ‘In pursuit of Truth and Justice’ Report is available here.

Submission re Queensland Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2016

Posted on by

Update 21 March 2017:

Tonight, Queensland Parliament has voted to – finally – abolish the homosexual advance defence (sometimes referred to as the ‘gay panic’ defence) from state law.

This move, while long overdue, is obviously welcome, removing one more piece of homophobic legislation from the Queensland statute books.

To read more about the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2016, see tonight’s report in the Brisbane Times ‘Gay panic laws pass Queensland Parliament, removing partial defence’.

Finally, I thank Mr Rob Molhoek, LNP member for Southport, for this ‘shout-out’ in his speech on the Bill:

“In his submission to the committee, Mr Alistair [sic] Lawrie commented that—

Even if a small minority of people remain firmly intolerant of homosexuality, that does not mean there should be a ‘special’ law to reduce the culpability of such a person where they are confronted by an unwanted homosexual sexual advance. To retain such a provision is unjust and discriminatory, and is a mark against any legal system which aspires to fairness.

I agree with that statement made by Mr Lawrie. I firmly believe that discrimination of any type, be it based on sexuality, age, gender or any other matter, has no place in our laws. That is why I support this proposed legislation.”

Update 22 February 2017:

The Report by the Queensland Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee into the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2016 was handed down yesterday. For a copy of the report, click here.

Pleasingly, the Committee’s main recommendation is that the Bill – which would finally abolish the homosexual advance defence or ‘gay panic defence’ in Queensland – should be passed.

The discussion of the abolition of this partial defence to murder, from pages 4 to 18, features a number of references to my own submission (which can be found in the post below).

This includes consideration of my concerns (and the concerns of others) about the drafting of and definitions for both ‘circumstances of an exceptional character’ and ‘unwanted sexual advance’.

I welcome the Committee’s interest in these issues, as well as their agreement to my own recommendation that the operation of the law as amended should be reviewed after 5 years to ensure it has functioned as intended (on page 18: “The committee agrees that the proposals in Clause 10 of the Bill should be reviewed in five years to establish whether they have operated as intended”).

For more on how this committee inquiry has been received, see The Brisbane Times article ‘Gay panic law reform bill should be passed, committee recommends’. 

Whether the Bill is passed is now up to Queensland Parliament, including the crossbenchers who hold the balance of power. Hopefully they agree to consign the homosexual advance defence to the history books as quickly as possible.

Original post:

The Palaszczuk Labor Government has proposed legislation that would, among other things, finally abolish the ‘homosexual advance defence’, or ‘gay panic’ defence, under Queensland law.

Its Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2016 is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. Full details of the Inquiry can be found here – my submission to the inquiry is included below.

The Committee is due to report by 21 February 2017. Hopefully, the homosexual advance defence is consigned to the history books shortly thereafter.

**********

The Research Director

Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee

Parliament House

Brisbane QLD 4000

lacsc@parliament.qld.gov.au

Monday 16 January 2017

Dear Committee,

Submission re Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2016

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2016.

In this submission I will be focusing exclusively on the proposed amendments to section 304 of the Queensland Criminal Code, as contained in clause 10 of the Bill.

Overall, I welcome these proposed amendments, given the stated intention of the Queensland Government that they will give effect to their election commitment to repeal the homosexual advance defence, or ‘gay panic’ defence.

As noted by Attorney-General the Hon Yvette D’Ath in her second reading speech:

“The amendment to section 304 provides that the partial defence is excluded if the sudden provocation is based on an unwanted sexual advance, other than in circumstances of an exceptional character. I know that there has developed a reference to this amendment as removing the ‘gay panic’ defence – that is, a situation where the defendant claims to have been provoked to murder by a homosexual advance by the deceased. I absolutely acknowledge this amendment’s importance to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex community – as it is to all Queenslanders who have voiced their criticism that such an advance could establish the partial defence.”

Indeed, the abolition of this defence, in the two Australian jurisdictions where it remains in place (Queensland and South Australia) is a priority for the LGBTI community nation-wide.

That is because the idea that a lesser level of criminal punishment – manslaughter rather than murder – should apply where a man kills another man because of an unwanted sexual advance is, to put it simply, abhorrent.

This point was made eloquently by Justice Kirby in his dissent in the High Court’s decision in Green v The Queen [1997] HCA 50:

“If every woman who was the subject of a “gentle”, “non-aggressive” although persistent sexual advance… could respond with brutal violence rising to an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the male importuning her, and then claim provocation after a homicide, the law of provocation would be sorely tested and undesirably extended… Any unwanted sexual advance, heterosexual or homosexual, can be offensive. It may intrude on sexual integrity in an objectionable way. But this Court should not send the message that, in Australia today, such conduct is objectively capable of being found by a jury to be sufficient to provoke the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Such a message unacceptably condones sexual violence by people who take the law into their own hands.”

The truly offensive nature of the homosexual advance defence is revealed by asking why it invariably applies to non-violent sexual advances by a man to another man. As Kirby asks, rhetorically, if a non-violent sexual advance from one man to another was sufficient to justify forming the intention to kill or seriously wound, why should this not also apply to a non-violent sexual advance by a man to a woman? Further, why shouldn’t a woman who receives an unwanted non-violent sexual advance from another woman have access to the partial defence of provocation? Why doesn’t it also apply to a man who receives an unwanted non-violent sexual advance from a woman?

The answer is that in all of these cases society justifiably expects the recipient of the unwanted sexual advance to exercise self-control. A violent response to an unwanted non-violent sexual advance, to the extent that the recipient forms the intention to kill or seriously wound, is so beyond the pale, or so far out of the ordinary, that we do not extend any reduction in culpability to the offender in these circumstances.

In my opinion, there is nothing so different, so special or so extraordinary, in the situation where the non-violent sexual advance is made by a man to another man, as to justify offering the offender in such cases any extra legal protection. In contemporary Australia, a man who receives an unwanted sexual advance should exercise the same level of self-control as we expect of any other person.

To have a separate legal standard apply to these cases is homophobic because it implies there is something so objectionable about a non-violent sexual advance by a man to another man that a violent reaction is almost to be expected, and at least somewhat excused. This does not reflect the reality of contemporary Australia, where, with the exception of marriage, gay men enjoy (most of) the same rights as other men, and are accepted as equals by the majority of society.

Even if a small minority of people remain firmly intolerant of homosexuality, that does not mean there should be a ‘special’ law to reduce the culpability of such a person where they are confronted by an unwanted homosexual sexual advance. To retain such a provision is unjust and discriminatory, and is a mark against any legal system which aspires to fairness.

The above discussion outlines why the homosexual advance defence is wrong in principle. What should not be forgotten is that the homosexual advance defence is also wrong in practice, or in the outcomes which it generates. After all, the defence does not simply exist in the statute books, ignored and unused. Instead, it has been argued in a number of different criminal cases, sometimes successfully.

This means there are real offenders who are in prison (or who have already been released), who have had their conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter, and most likely their sentence reduced along with it, simply because they killed in response to an non-violent homosexual advance. The legal system has operated to reduce the liability of these offenders even when broader society does not accept that such a reduction is justified. As a result, these offenders have not been adequately punished, meaning that above all these victims have not received justice.

Similarly, the family members and friends of the victims killed in such circumstances have witnessed the trials of these offenders, expecting justice to be served, only to find that the killer is not considered a murderer under the law. Instead, these family members and friends find some level of blame is placed on the actions of the victim, that somehow by engaging in a non-violent sexual advance they have helped to cause and even partly deserved their own death.

For all of these reasons, I strongly support the abolition of the homosexual advance defence, or ‘gay panic’ defence, in any jurisdiction where it remains.

Therefore, I commend the Queensland Palaszczuk Labor Government for its commitment to remove this abhorrent law from the statute books via the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2016.

It does so through the inclusion of clause 10, which would amend section 304 of the Queensland Criminal Code, the provision that establishes the partial defence to murder of provocation.

Specifically, I welcome the proposed insertion of new sub-section 304(3A):

“Further, sub-section (1) does not apply, other than in circumstances of an exceptional character, if the sudden provocation is based on an unwanted sexual advance to the person.”

Prima facie, the inclusion of this new sub-section substantively removes the partial defence of provocation for circumstances where the ‘provoking conduct’ was an unwanted, non-violent sexual advance.

In principle, then, the homosexual advance defence, or ‘gay panic’ defence, would be abolished in Queensland by the passage of this Bill.

However, I do have two concerns about the drafting of the amendments to section 304, and their potential operation.

First, by including the phrase ‘other than in circumstances of an exceptional character’, I am concerned that this leaves the door slightly ajar to at least some cases where the homosexual advance defence may be sought to be used.

I note that, for the purposes of new sub-section 3A, there is no restriction on what might constitute ‘circumstances of an exceptional character’ (with proposed new sub-section 6A merely providing that regard may be had to any history of violence, or of sexual conduct, between the offender and the victim).

This leaves room for judicial interpretation, and the possibility, albeit remote, that the homosexual advance defence may still be successfully raised.

For this reason, I suggest that the operation of the reforms to 304 be reviewed after a period of five years, to assess whether these amendments have operated as intended.

Recommendation 1: The operation of the proposed reforms to section 304 should be reviewed after five years, to assess how they have operated in practice, including how the term ‘circumstances of an exceptional character’ has been applied in cases where a defendant has sought to invoke what would be described as the homosexual advance defence.

The second concern I have about the proposed amendments is the inclusion of the definition of ‘unwanted sexual advance’ in new sub-section 9:

“In this section-

unwanted sexual advance, to a person, means a sexual advance that-

(a) is unwanted by the person; and

(b) if the sexual advance involves touching the person – involves only minor touching.

Examples of what may be minor touching depending on all the relevant circumstances-

patting, pinching, grabbing or brushing against the person, even if the touching is an offence against section 352(1)(a) or another provision of this Code or another Act.”

The attempt to provide clarity of what forms an unwanted sexual advance, as a means to prevent the successful use of the homosexual advance defence, is clearly welcome.

The reference to section 352(1)(a) is also useful because, as the Attorney-General noted in her second reading speech “the spectrum of conduct that falls within the offence of sexual assault is very broad”, and this should not automatically result in an increased ability of a murderer to seek to have their charge downgraded.

However, the creation of a definition of unwanted sexual advance creates the risk, and arguably the incentive, for the perpetrator of these types of offences to exaggerate the ‘touching’ that was involved in the unwanted sexual advance that preceded the murder.

Given the nature of these cases, there will necessarily be no ability for the victim to provide any evidence disputing this exaggeration.

It would obviously be disappointing if, in attempting to remove the homosexual advance defence, the Government introduces a provision that instead allows its continued use, in certain circumstances, with the defendant induced to increase their claims about the unwanted sexual advance by the deceased.

It is difficult to see how this particular risk can be completely excluded – other than by adopting the approach of some other states and territories (including Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania) to abolish the partial defence of provocation entirely.

As with the definition of ‘circumstances of an exceptional character’ above, I suggest that the operation of these provisions generally, and the definition of ‘unwanted sexual advance’ specifically, be reviewed after five years, to determine whether there have been any unintended or unforeseen consequences of these amendments.

If there have been, then at that point it may be appropriate to consider abolishing the partial defence of provocation altogether, and replacing it with specific defences or partial defences for a limited range of scenarios (for example, in the context of family violence).

Recommendation 2: The operation of the proposed reforms to section 304 should be reviewed after five years, to assess how they have operated in practice, including how the definition of ‘unwanted sexual advance’ has been applied, and whether it has simply induced defendants to exaggerate their claims about the unwanted sexual advance by the deceased.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this submission regarding the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2016, and specifically about clause 10, a provision that is intended to finally abolish the homosexual advance defence, or ‘gay panic’ defence, in Queensland.

As indicated above, I welcome these reforms in principle. The above two recommendations are offered in order to help ensure that the intention of the Bill is reflected in practice.

I can be contacted at the details provided with this submission, should the Committee have any questions about this submission, or require any additional information about the matters raised.

Sincerely

Alastair Lawrie

Yvette D'Ath

Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath, who introduced the Criminal Law Amendment Bill on 30 November last year.

LGBTI Highs & Lows of 2014

Posted on by

A short final post to bring to a close this blog for another year. As always, the past 12 months have been incredibly busy, having seen significant achievements in LGBTI rights in some areas, and a disappointing lack of progress in others. The following are my personal views on a couple of the major highlights of 2014, two ongoing ‘lowlights’, and one item of unfinished business.

  1. NSW Finally Repeals the Homosexual Advance Defence

In May, NSW Parliament passed the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014, finally removing the homophobic and biphobic ‘homosexual advance’ or ‘gay panic’ defence from our statute books. This was a long overdue reform, and is testament to the hard work of many, many LGBTI activists, and organisations (including, but not limited to, the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby), over the past 15-20 years.

From my own perspective, I was happy to play a small role as part of the overall movement to abolish this discriminatory law. I was one of 52 individuals and organisations to lodge a submission to the Parliamentary inquiry into the Partial Defence of Provocation in 2012 (submission here: https://alastairlawrie.net/2012/08/10/submission-on-homosexual-advance-defence/ ), and also made a submission to the then Attorney-General on the draft Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill in late 2013 (submission here: https://alastairlawrie.net/2013/11/14/submission-on-crimes-amendment-provocation-bill-2013-re-homosexual-advance-or-gay-panic-defence/ ).

Now that NSW has finally removed this stain from the Crimes Act, it is time for Queensland and South Australia to also consign the homosexual advance defence to the dustbin of history.

  1. Victoria and NSW Pass Legislation Allowing Historical Convictions for Homosexual Sex to be Expunged

This was another long overdue law reform, and one that is essential to help remedy some of the injustice caused, both by the criminalisation of male-male sexual intercourse (with decriminalisation taking effect in Victoria in March 1981, and in NSW in June 1984), and also by the differential age of consent post-decriminalisation (with the age of consent equalised in Victoria in 1991, and in NSW, shamefully, not until 2003).

This achievement belongs primarily to those campaigners in Victoria who kept the issue alive for many years, if not decades (including Jamie Gardiner, someone whom I am privileged to be able to call a friend and mentor), and who put in the legal policy development work over the past couple of years (including Anna Brown, of the Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby and the Human Rights Law Centre), among numerous others. The NSW reforms were able to successfully ‘piggyback’ on this advocacy south of the border.

For my part, I was able to pursue this issue as the Policy Working Group chair of the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby 2012-2014, as well as writing to the new Premier, Mike Baird, in May of this year calling for a party vote in favour of Bruce Notley-Smith’s Bill (letter here: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/05/25/letter-to-nsw-premier-mike-baird-re-lgbti-equality-and-conscience-votes/ ).

But I am perhaps most proud that it was a motion that I drafted which was passed at ALP State Conference in July which ensured the Labor Opposition would vote, as a bloc, in favour of this reform – although it would be remiss of me not to say that it was Penny Sharpe’s advocacy behind the scenes that ensured this motion was successful.

As with the homosexual advance defence, it is now up to other states to similarly pass legislation to allow men affected by these laws to have their convictions expunged. And for Queensland, this must also include amendments to finally introduce an equal age of consent (with a higher age of consent for anal intercourse still in force there).

  1. Australia Still Persecuting LGBTI Refugees

Onto the ‘lowlights’ of 2014 and the first could be taken from 12 months previously – and in fact it is, with Australia’s ongoing policy of sending LGBTI refugees to countries which criminalise homosexuality for processing and resettlement also featuring atop my end of year Highs & Lows from 2013 (see original post here: https://alastairlawrie.net/2013/12/27/no-1-australia-sends-lgbti-refugees-to-countries-which-criminalise-homosexuality/ ).

Sadly, the situation one year later isn’t all that different. The policy is still in breach of our international human rights obligations, is still fundamentally unjust, and is still an insult to humanity itself – both of the refugees, and ours because it is being done in our name. The Immigration Department essentially confirmed in a response to me that the Government will continue to send LGBTI refugees to Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, and to Nauru, for the foreseeable future (see my letter and their response, on behalf of Minister Scott Morrison, here: https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/02/02/letter-to-scott-morrison-about-treatment-of-lgbti-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-sent-to-manus-island-png/ ).

The only glimmers of hope at the end of another depressing year in this area are that a) Minister Morrison is today being replaced in the Immigration portfolio and b) the treatment of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees has been receiving increased media coverage, both in LGBTI community publications (including the Star Observer and samesame) and importantly in mainstream media (with a special mention of the Guardian Australia for their ongoing work in this area).

  1. Lack of Progress on Involuntary or Coerced Sterilisation of Intersex People

This ‘lowlight’ is also taken from the 2013 list of Highs & Lows, although at that stage it was presented in a much more favourable manner, given the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs had only recently handed down its report on the Involuntary or Coerced Sterilisation of Intersex People in Australia (see post here: https://alastairlawrie.net/2013/12/25/no-3-senate-report-on-involuntary-or-coerced-sterilisation-of-intersex-people-in-australia/ ).

Unfortunately, 12 months on and there has apparently been little progress in this area – despite the Report itself being debated in the Senate in March, I am unaware of any formal Government response, let alone significant reforms to implement its recommendations. Let’s hope that, in 2015, the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments all take action to ensure that the human rights of intersex children are no longer violated in this way.

  1. Campaign for the ALP to Adopt a Binding Vote on Marriage Equality

The final entry in this list of ‘Highs & Lows’ is actually an item of unfinished business, both of the past 12 months, and also stretching back to the 2011 ALP National Conference, which adopted marriage equality in the party’s platform, but then immediately undermined it by enabling members of the parliamentary party to vote against this plank of the platform for any reason whatsoever.

As I have written previously (see my major post on this topic, ‘Hey Australian Labor, It’s Time to Bind on Marriage Equality’ https://alastairlawrie.net/2014/07/13/hey-australian-labor-its-time-to-bind-on-marriage-equality/ ), it is highly unlikely that marriage equality will pass Commonwealth Parliament in this term without a binding vote for ALP MPs. Which means that the votes by the Tasmanian State ALP Conference in July, and Queensland State Conference in August, to support a binding vote were incredibly encouraging, and even the close loss in NSW in July was heartening (because, if those voting patterns were repeated across Australia, it would likely be successful at the national level).

This campaign, which I refer to as #ItsTimeToBind, will be one of the most important of 2015, as we move towards ALP National Conference in Melbourne in July. Let’s see whether Bill Shorten will stand up and be a Leader who supports the fundamental equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australian, without exception.

So, that brings me to the end of my writing for another year. On a personal note, I would like to say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who has read, commented (even when they have disagreed), shared and liked my posts. As you can probably tell, I enjoy writing, and I enjoy it even more when I know that people are interacting with it (and the almost 16,000 unique visitors, from 141 countries, this year is both humbling and, to be honest, a little bit exciting).

On that point, if you do enjoy reading and visiting this blog, please consider signing up (either on WordPress or via email – the subscription options for both are located at the top of the right-hand side-bar), and to stay up-to-date you can also follow me on twitter https://twitter.com/alawriedejesus . Have a happy and safe end to 2014, and let’s hope that 2015 brings with it even more progress towards full LGBTI equality, both in Australia and overseas. Thanks, Alastair

No 12 The End (Almost) of the Homosexual Advance Defence in NSW

Posted on by

One of the more pleasing aspects of law reform in NSW over the past 12 months has been signs of progress – at last – on the subject of the homosexual advance (or “gay panic”) defence.

The Legislative Council Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation, chaired by Mr Fred Nile, handed down its long-awaited report on 23 April. (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/61173c421853420aca257b5500838b2e/$FILE/Partial%20defence%20of%20provocation_Final%20report.pdf)

The Committee explicitly and unanimously recommended that the homosexual advance defence should be repealed. Recommendation 6 of their Report reads: “[t]hat the NSW Government introduce an amendment to section 23 of the Crimes Act 1900 to ensure that the partial defence [of provocation] is not available to defendants who… respond to a non-violent sexual advance by the victim.”

One month later, on May 22, Premier Barry O’Farrell confirmed that the NSW Government would indeed act to ensure that the partial defence of provocation, which if successful reduces a murder conviction to manslaughter, does not apply in circumstances where there is only a non-violent sexual advance. (http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/provocation-laws-to-be-changed-in-nsw/story-e6frfku9-1226648578317)

In October, the Government tabled its response to the Committee. It accepted the policy intention of the Committee’s Report, and included an Exposure Draft Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013 for public consultation. (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/61173c421853420aca257b5500838b2e/$FILE/Partial%20defence%20of%20provocation%20-%20Govt%20response.pdf)

As part of that Exposure Draft Bill, which reframes the partial defence of provocation to a partial defence of extreme provocation, it is proposed that the new section 23 would include a clause providing that “[c]onduct of the deceased does not constitute extreme provocation if… the conduct was only a non-violent sexual advance to the accused.”

In short, if this Bill is introduced into and passed by the NSW Parliament then the stain of the homosexual advance (or ‘gay panic’) defence will finally be removed from the law books of NSW for good. And the signs continue to be encouraging – just this week, Premier O’Farrell told 2GB radio that it was the Government’s intention that the Bill will be “hopefully through the Parliament by the end of February” (audio starting at 6mins40seconds: http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/25171#.Uqf1xyct2RM).

Which would be not a moment too soon. Because this is not some historical artefact, gathering dust somewhere, sitting neglected on a shelf. The homosexual advance defence has been used, and used regularly, over the last 20 years. When successful, it dishonours the victim of a brutal killing, implying that he was at least partly at fault, all for simply making a non-violent pass at someone else.

It is somewhat ironic that one of the most eloquent rebuttals of the homosexual advance defence comes from the very same case in which the High Court of Australia upheld its validity. In Green v The Queen [1997] HCA 50, then Justice Michael Kirby dissented, writing:

“If every woman who was the subject of a “gentle”, “non-aggressive” although persistent sexual advance… could respond with brutal violence rising to an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the male importuning her, and then claim provocation after a homicide, the law of provocation would be sorely tested and undesirably extended… Any unwanted sexual advance, heterosexual or homosexual, can be offensive. It may intrude on sexual integrity in an objectionable way. But this Court should not send the message that, in Australia today, such conduct is objectively capable of being found by a jury to be sufficient to provoke the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Such a message unacceptably condones sexual violence by people who take the law into their own hands.”

At the core of this partial defence lies unbridled homophobia, an irrational fear, and stereotyping, of gay men as “predators”, lurking and waiting for any opportunity to pounce on any unsuspecting “normal” heterosexual men. And it tells these “normal” men that they are entitled to use lethal force to repel any type of unwanted, non-violent sexual advance, that it is, at least in part, justified to somehow help defend their “honour”.

It is a law that has always been unjust. It seems that Members of the NSW Parliament have at last recognised that fact. To that I say, better late than never. But never forget the victims whose murderers have escaped the full convictions, and punishments, that they deserved, solely because the victim made a non-violent sexual advance to them.

Assuming that the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill is passed early next year, I am sure that the actual repeal of the homosexual advance defence would feature highly on any list of the highs and lows of 2014. Til then, it is up to us to make one final push to ensure this abhorrent piece of law is finally abolished, once and for all.

Related posts:

My 2012 submission to the Select Committee Inquiry: https://alastairlawrie.net/2012/08/10/submission-on-homosexual-advance-defence/

My 2013 Submission on the Exposure Draft Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013: https://alastairlawrie.net/2013/11/14/submission-on-crimes-amendment-provocation-bill-2013-re-homosexual-advance-or-gay-panic-defence/

Submission on Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013 re Homosexual Advance (or ‘Gay Panic’) Defence

Posted on by

I am writing to make a submission on the Exposure Draft Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013, as released by the Attorney-General, the Hon Greg Smith MP, on 17 October 2013.

First, I would like to commend the Attorney-General, and the O’Farrell Government more broadly, for developing a Bill which, if passed, would finally abolish the homosexual advance (or ‘gay panic’) defence.

The homosexual advance defence has long been a stain on the fabric of our criminal justice system, resulting in the ‘downgrading’ of convictions from murder to manslaughter where it is not justified, and in doing so implying that the victim was in some way at fault, even to a small extent that they ‘deserved’ what happened to them.

Sadly, this has not been an abstract injustice, restricted to the statute books, but a defence that has been used, successfully, in multiple criminal trials over the past 20 years. This means that there is every chance that it could be used again, unless and until this Bill is passed.

Which brings me to my first recommendation: The Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013 should be passed as soon as possible. This will help ensure that no future victim is disrespected by the fact their murderer escapes with a lesser conviction, and probable reduced sentence, simply because that murderer had a homophobic reaction to the victim’s non-violent sexual advance.

If, for whatever reason, the NSW Government is unable to progress this legislation with the urgency that it requires then, as a fall-back, I suggest that it consider amending clause 2 of the Bill to ensure that the Act has retrospective application.

Specifically, if the legislation is not passed by the end of the first sittings in 2014 (on Thursday March 27th), consideration should be given to back-dating the legislation to take effect from the date the Government formally confirmed its intention to introduce these reforms through the release of this Exposure Draft (ie on 17 October 2013).

I acknowledge that this would be a drastic step for any Parliament to take. No-one should casually amend the criminal law in such a way, especially where the offence involved carries significant penalties, without a compelling justification.

But I sincerely believe that a case for doing so could be made in these circumstances: that the injustice of our legal system effectively saying that a killing is less offensive, less contrary to community standards, less worthy of punishment than other killings, simply because the non-violent sexual advance involved was from one man to another, is so great that the question of retrospective application at least merits further debate.

Despite this, my overall preference would be for the Bill to be passed without including such provisions, and that this happen in the shortest possible timeframe, making retrospectivity less of a pressing concern.

My second recommendation deals with another potential issue which would remain unresolved even if the Exposure Draft Bill was passed, and that is: The new Crimes Act section 23, introduced by the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013, should specify that the ordinary person is not homophobic.

The Exposure Draft Bill includes multiple safeguards to help ensure that a non-violent sexual advance, whether same-sex or heterosexual, cannot be used as the basis of the partial defence of extreme provocation.

Specifically, proposed new sub-section 23(2)(b) requires that the conduct of the deceased was a “serious indictable offence”, which would clearly not include a non-violent sexual advance. Even more categorically, sub-section 23(3)(a) ensures that the partial defence cannot be raised in circumstances where “the conduct was only a non-violent sexual advance to the accused.” I strongly support the inclusion of both provisions.

However, in the event of a contested murder prosecution, there can be doubt about the boundary between what constitutes a non-violent sexual advance and a violent sexual advance. This doubt can, and often will, be exploited by a defendant, especially because the victim is not available to provide their version of events. It would be a potentially perverse, although perhaps unavoidable, consequence of the Government’s reforms that it would introduce an even greater incentive for a defendant to establish that the victim’s sexual advance was itself violent.

If the defendant is successful in establishing that the victim’s sexual advance was indeed violent (or that there is at least some evidence to support this: see proposed sub-section 23(7)), then proposed sub-section 23(2)(d) becomes relevant, and it maintains the existing ‘ordinary person’ test to assess whether the loss of self-control is accepted as the basis of this partial defence.

It is possible that, given hardening community attitudes against rape, any violent sexual advance, irrespective of the sexes or genders of the people involved, would now satisfy the ‘ordinary person’ test in terms of partially excusing that loss of self-control. If that is the case, then there would be no unjustified discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the law would not require further amendment.

However, it is also possible that a male defendant could claim a violent sexual advance from another man is more egregious or offensive, and therefore more worthy of the application of the partial defence, than a violent sexual advance in other circumstances (eg a violent sexual advance from a woman to a man).

Based on the existing case-law (including Green v The Queen 1997), there is a possibility that this argument would be accepted – the consequence of which being that, once again, the killing of someone who makes a same-sex sexual advance would be treated as less serious than the killing of someone who makes a heterosexual sexual advance in the same circumstances (the only difference being that both would now be violent).

Given the significant step forward overall which would be achieved by the passage of this Bill, I do not wish to see it undermined by the ongoing possibility of such homophobic discrimination, which is why I propose that new section 23 include a provision that, at least for the purposes of this partial defence, the ordinary person is not homophobic, bi-phobic, trans-phobic or prejudiced towards intersex people (specifically, the ordinary person does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status).

As with  the suggestion about retrospectivity, discussed earlier, this would be an unusual step for a Parliament to take, and leaves open for consideration a range of other factors which may or may not need to be prescribed (for example, that the ordinary person is not racist or sexist). I make no comment here about those or other factors (other than noting that, whatever list may be deemed necessary include, it should be inclusive rather than exhaustive).

Nevertheless, given we are fully aware that the law has allowed homophobic discrimination within the partial defence of provocation in the past, I believe we should be actively considering how to prevent further such discrimination in the future within the new partial defence of extreme provocation. Even if the section itself is not amended, alternatives could include either or both the explanatory memorandum and second reading speech noting that it is not the Parliament’s intention that the new partial defence should operate in a homophobic manner.

Leaving aside these two recommendations, it is my firm belief that the passage of the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Bill 2013 would be a significant, and long-overdue, achievement. This is something that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community has been campaigning on for many years: it is my sincere hope that the homosexual advance (or gay panic’’) defence will finally be consigned to the dustbin of history in the very near future.

2nd Anniversary of Election of O’Farrell Government

Posted on by

So, last week I wrote a column on behalf of the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) for the Star Observer, looking at the 2 year anniversary of the election of the O’Farrell Liberal-National Government in NSW. It has been published today, and can be found at the following link: http://www.starobserver.com.au/opinion/2013/04/03/speaking-out-6/101597 . I will publish the full text of the article here next week (ie after the current edition).

Basically, NSW has not gone backwards on LGBTI law reform over the past 2 years, unlike our neighbours North of the Tweed under Premier Campbell Newman (who continues to wage war against the rights of and services for the Queensland LGBTI community). It is unclear which model the likely incoming Prime Minister Tony Abbott will follow (although one has to suspect he will be more like Newman than O’Farrell).

But just because O’Farrell and his Government have not gone backwards doesn’t mean there has been any great progress either. The next 12 months will be key, in particular seeing whether he and his Government support state-based marriage equality, abolish the homosexual advance or gay panic defence and continue, and hopefully expand, the Proud Schools program.

Full text:

As always, there has been a lot going on over the past month, including the community’s response to police (mis)conduct during the Mardi Gras Festival, as well as the Legislative Council’s hearings into State-based marriage equality laws.

One event which almost went unnoticed was the 2nd anniversary of the election of the O’Farrell Government, which happened last week. This officially marked the halfway point of this term of Parliament.

Many people in the LGBTI community probably greeted the election of a Liberal/National Government back in March 2011 with a degree of trepidation, not knowing exactly what to expect on gay and lesbian issues. The good news is that there have not been any major backwards steps on gay and lesbian law reform in NSW.

In fact, there have been some small wins, with the continuation of the Proud Schools pilot, and the passage of a symbolic motion in favour of marriage equality by the Legislative Council in mid-2012. However, there have been no major advances on gay and lesbian rights under the O’Farrell Government so far either.

As the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, we believe that over the next 12 months it is time for the Liberal/National Government, and the Parliament more broadly, to demonstrate its commitment to treating the LGBTI people of NSW equally.

There are three major legislative and policy issues which are already on the agenda for the coming year. The first is the Upper House Inquiry into the partial defence of provocation, which is due to report by 2 May. We will be looking for the O’Farrell Government to abolish the homosexual advance or ‘gay panic’ defence, because non-violent sexual advances should never be a justification to downgrade a murder conviction to manslaughter.

The second issue is the State-based marriage equality Bill, which should be voted on later in 2013. The GLRL wants parliamentarians of all political persuasions to support the legal recognition of the equality of same-sex relationships.

The third issue which is already on the agenda is a decision on the long-term future of Proud Schools. At the Lobby, we believe that all LGBTI students deserve to have an education free from bullying, prejudice and discrimination. Consequently, we want to see Proud Schools continued and indeed expanded across NSW.

This is obviously not an exhaustive list, and the Lobby will be campaigning on other issues, including removing religious exceptions in anti-discrimination law and calling for a review of the criminalisation of commercial surrogacy arrangements, during the ‘second half’ of this term.

But, by acting on the three issues identified above, the O’Farrell Government, and the NSW Parliament generally, would demonstrate that they genuinely believe LGBTI people should be treated equally. Time will tell.

OFarrell hand

Premier O’Farrell – We won’t let you put these issues to one side this year…

Submission on Homosexual Advance Defence

Posted on by

The following is a submission which I am lodging today with the NSW Legislative Council Provocation Committee which is inquiring into the Partial Defence of Provocation. It is an opportunity to make the argument that the homosexual advance defence, or ‘gay panic’ defence, should be repealed because it is unjust and discriminatory. The Committee has extended the deadline to Friday 24 August 2012 so I would encourage anyone interested to make a similar submission.

NB On Tuesday 23 2013, the Committee handed down its final report. In it, all members of the Committee, including the Chair, Mr Fred Nile, recommended that non-violent sexual offences should not be the basis of a provocation defence. Which means in practice, that all members have recommended that the Homosexual Advance Defence be abolished. This is obviously a great result – it is now up to the Premier, the Hon Barry O’Farrell MP, to implement this reform, as quickly as possible. The full report can be found here: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/61173C421853420ACA257B5500838B2E?open&refnavid=CO4_1

Submission to the Legislative Council Provocation Committee Inquiry into the Partial Defence of Provocation

This submission will focus on one aspect of the operation of the partial defence of provocation – the so-called homosexual advance (or ‘gay panic’) defence.

In particular, it will argue that the law of provocation should be reformed by either amending s.23 of the Crimes Act 1900 to ensure that non-violent sexual advances cannot be considered as an act which induces provocation, or by repealing s.23 in its entirety to remove the partial defence of provocation altogether.

This is necessary to ensure that never again can a person who commits homicide have their offence downgraded, from murder to manslaughter, with a consequent reduction in maximum sentence, simply on the basis of a non-violent sexual advance.

As noted in the Committee’s briefing paper for this inquiry, the statutory basis of the partial defence of provocation lies in s.23 of the Crimes Act. In particular, sub-sections (1) and (2) provide that:

(1) Where, on the trial of a person for murder, it appears that the act or omission causing death was an act done or omitted under provocation and, but for this subsection and the provocation, the jury would have found the accused guilty of murder, the jury shall acquit the accused of murder and find the accused guilty of manslaughter.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act or omission causing death is an act done or omitted under provocation where:

(a) the act or omission is the result of a loss of self-control on the part of the accused that was induced by any conduct of the deceased (including grossly insulting words or gestures) towards or affecting the accused, and

(b) that conduct of the deceased was such as could have induced an ordinary person in the position of the accused to have so far lost self-control as to have formed an intent to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm upon, the deceased,

It is difficult to comprehend how these sub-sections have ever operated to mitigate the responsibility of an offender who kills another person in response to a non-violent sexual advance. It is almost impossible to understand how it could still be the case in 2012.

The ultimate fault for this sorry state of affairs lies with the majority of High Court justices in Green v The Queen [1997] HCA 50. With all due respect to Chief Justice Brennan, Justice Toohey and Justice McHugh, they incorrectly applied the ordinary person element in sub-section (2)(b) to mitigate the responsibility of the offender. As has been made clear in repeated criticisms of this decision, the ‘ordinary person’ in contemporary Australia is not so homophobic that their response to a non-violent homosexual advance is to form the intent to kill that person or to wish to inflict grievous bodily harm upon them.

This point was of course made eloquently by Justice Kirby in his dissent:

“If every woman who was the subject of a “gentle”, “non-aggressive” although persistent sexual advance… could respond with brutal violence rising to an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the male importuning her, and then claim provocation after a homicide, the law of provocation would be sorely tested and undesirably extended… Any unwanted sexual advance, heterosexual or homosexual, can be offensive. It may intrude on sexual integrity in an objectionable way. But this Court should not send the message that, in Australia today, such conduct is objectively capable of being found by a jury to be sufficient to provoke the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Such a message unacceptably condones serious violence by people who take the law into their own hands.”

The truly offensive nature of the homosexual advance defence is revealed by asking why it invariably applies only to non-violent sexual advances by a man to another man? As Kirby asks, rhetorically, if a non-violent sexual advance from one man to another was sufficient to justify forming the intention to kill or seriously wound, why should this not also apply to a non-violent sexual advance by a man to a woman? Further, why shouldn’t a woman who receives an unwanted non-violent sexual advance from another woman have access to the partial defence of provocation? Why doesn’t it also apply to a man who receives an unwanted non-violent sexual advance from a woman? Or, in my case, as a gay man, why can’t I access the partial defence of provocation if I receive an unwanted sexual advance from another man?

The answer is that in all of these cases society justifiably expects the recipient of the unwanted sexual advance to exercise self-control. A violent response to an unwanted non-violent sexual advance, to the extent that the recipient forms the intention to kill or seriously wound, is so beyond the pale, or so far out of the ‘ordinary’, that we do not extend any reduction in culpability to the offender in these circumstances.

In my opinion, there is nothing so different, so special or so extraordinary, in the situation where the non-violent sexual advance is made by a man to another man, as to justify offering the offender in such cases any extra legal protection. In contemporary Australia, a man who receives an unwanted sexual advance should exercise the same level of self-control as we expect of any other person.

To have a separate legal standard apply to these cases is homophobic because it implies there is something so abhorrent about a non-violent sexual advance by a man to another man that a violent reaction is almost to be expected, and at least somewhat excused. This does not reflect the reality of contemporary Australia, where, with the exception of marriage, gay men enjoy the same rights as other men, and are accepted as equals by the majority of society.

Even if a small minority of people remain firmly intolerant of homosexuality, that does not mean there should be a ‘special’ law to reduce the culpability of such a person where they are confronted by an unwanted homosexual sexual advance. To retain such a provision is unjust and discriminatory, and is a mark against any legal system which aspires to fairness.

The above discussion outlines why the homosexual advance defence is wrong in principle. What should not be forgotten is that the homosexual advance defence is also wrong in practice, or in the outcomes which it generates. After all, the defence does not simply exist in the statute books, ignored and unused. Instead, it has been argued in a number of different criminal cases, sometimes successfully.

This means there are real offenders who are in prison (or who have already been released), who have had their conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter, and most likely their sentence reduced along with it, simply because they killed in response to an non-violent homosexual advance. The legal system has operated to reduce the liability of these offenders even when broader society does not accept that such a reduction is justified. As a result, these offenders have not been adequately punished, meaning that above all these victims have not received justice.

Similarly, the family members and friends of the victims killed in such circumstances have witnessed the trials of these offenders, expecting justice to be served, only to find that the killer is not considered a murderer under the law. Instead, these family members and friends find some level of blame is placed on the actions of the victim, that somehow by engaging in a non-violent sexual advance they have helped to cause and even partly deserved their own death.

The saddest part of preparing this submission was in reading the Committee’s briefing paper and learning that, not only have at least 11 men been killed in these circumstances in NSW, but also that 11 families were so profoundly let down by the justice system between January 1990 and September 2004. It is highly likely that the defence has been used more times since then, dishonouring more victims and causing additional pain to more families already dealing with the loss of a loved one.

I wrote earlier that it is the fault of the High Court, in Green v The Queen, that the homosexual advance defence remains a part of the criminal law. Where the courts get it wrong, as they clearly have in this area, it is the responsibility of the parliament to remedy the error and thereby ensure the justice system operates in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

There are two options for the NSW Parliament to abolish the homosexual advance defence.

The first would be to amend s.23 of the Crimes Act 1900 by inserting a section which would exclude non-violent homosexual advances from forming the basis of provocation. This was the course of action recommended by the Homosexual Advance Defence Working Group in 1998, and appears to have been adopted in the ACT and NT.

The second option would be repeal s.23 in its entirety and abolish the partial defence of provocation altogether, as has been done by Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

As I have concentrated solely on the homosexual advance defence and not on the impact of such a change on cases involving family violence and other instances where the partial defence of provocation may be applied, I am not in a position to recommend which of these options should be adopted in the broader context (for example, if s.23 is repealed entirely, it may be necessary to incorporate a new provision for ‘defensive homicide’, as the Victorian Parliament did in 2008).

Nevertheless, I believe it is clear the NSW Parliament should adopt one of these courses of action to ensure that no more killers are able to rely on the homosexual advance defence to reduce their conviction from murder to manslaughter. The homosexual advance defence is unjust, it is discriminatory and it should be made history.

Recommendation

The NSW Parliament should either:

a)      Amend s.23 of the Crimes Act 1900 by inserting a section which would exclude non-violent homosexual advances from forming the basis of provocation; or

b)      Repeal s.23 of the Crimes Act, thereby removing the partial defence of provocation entirely.

Alastair Lawrie

10 August 2012