Community attitudes to defences and sentences in cases of homicide and assault in Queensland
Over the past 10 years, criminal legislation in Australia has been reformed substantially, to ensure the law reflects evolving contemporary understandings of different forms of domestic and family violence, including non-physical forms of abuse. This includes recent reforms to introduce an offence of coercive control and affirmative consent legislation
On 15 November 2023, the Queensland Law Reform Commission were requested to review particular defences and excuses in the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). To inform the development of the Commission’s recommendations, this community attitudes research project was contracted.
The research team, led by Dr Hayley Boxall with Dr Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Prof Lorana Bartels and Rebekah Ruddy, utilised a mixed-methods research design, involving a community attitudes survey and focus groups. Specifically, we utilised a weighted representative survey of approximately 2,500 people living in Queensland, and focus groups with 58 members of the Queensland community. To assess community attitudes to the use of partial and complete defences, we presented community members with several scenarios describing situations where one person seriously harmed or killed another person. As part of the survey, we also asked participants about their sociodemographic characteristics, and questions to assess their understanding of and attitudes towards domestic and family violence.
The key findings from our study highlight community attitudes relevant to the terms of references for the QLRC review. This includes the community’s view of factors relevant to assessing culpability and appropriate sentencing.
Specifically, our study made 12 key findings:
1. Most community members don’t blame victims for their abuse or have attitudes which minimise DFV.
2. Individual attitudes and knowledge about DFV influenced whether people thought DFV defendants should have a defence.
3. The community does not support provocation as a defence to assault if there is a risk of significant injury.
4. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants had different views about defendant culpability than non-Indigenous participants in a small number of scenarios.
5. Community attitudes align with traditional rules of self-defence, and participants were able to weigh relevant factors to assess culpability.
6. The community support alternatives to criminal prosecution where parents use minimal force to discipline children.
7. The community supports teachers’ ability to use force for the purpose of management or control but not for discipline or correction.
8. The community does not support provocation defences where the defendant’s conduct is motivated by anger, jealousy, or a desire for control, particularly in cases involving DFV.
9. The community expects individualised criminal justice responses to the use of lethal violence.
10. There was strong community support for partial and complete defences and consideration of abuse for victim-survivors of DFV who kill an abusive partner.
11. There was some support for a partial defence of excessive self-defence.
12. The community does not support the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment for murder. The community expects sentencing to reflect the culpability of murder defendants.
