‘Gay panic’ defence no more in Queensland
January 27, 2012
Flag of Queensland
The ‘gay panic’ defence is no more in the Australian state of Queensland following a petition by a Catholic priest that gathered over 25,000 signatures and international support.
Defendants in murder cases employ the “gay panic” defence in an effort to dwindle down their murder charge to manslaughter.
After a man was killed on the grounds of his church, Father Kelly began the petition. At the time he said, “It is simply intolerable that anyone can rely on a defence or an excuse that an alleged homosexual advance could somehow mitigate against violence that leads to death.”
Paul Lucas, the attorney General of Queensland, said on the new, “We made it crystal clear from day one that the Queensland Government does not believe that anyone should be able to use a claim of non-violent homosexual advance to reduce a conviction from murder to manslaughter.
“That’s why we listened to the expert advice of the Queensland Law Reform Commission in 2008 and ensured strengthened legislation was passed so words alone could not amount to a partial defence.
“However, I received a number of representations from the gay community last year and consequently set up an expert committee comprised of key stakeholders to examine the laws.”
A section in the Queensland Criminal Code will have to be amended.
“It is not possible to remove sexual advances completely without affecting situations such as that of a battered woman who knows that her refusal of a sexual advance from her partner is a precursor to assault and she takes immediate action to stop this from happening,” said Paul.
“There is no place for these kinds of acts in a civilised society.
“These amendments make it crystal clear that someone making a pass at someone is not grounds for a partial defence and by no means an excuse for horribly violent acts.”
Father Kelly said that he is pleased that changes are coming.
“I am heartened but cautious in relation to the latest announcement from the Queensland government committing itself to the effective eradication of the “homosexual advance” partial defence. It still appears to be tinkering around the edges. I await the details of the report and the recommendations.
“Issues of raising of evidence in the trial still seem unclear. The vagueness and means of adjudicating “exceptional circumstances” may still allow circumstances of an alleged advance to pollute jury considerations and tap into prejudices. Concern remains.”
Image in public domain
