Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
Partial defences to murder: Provocation, diminished responsibility and infanticide
Reference received: 17 March 1993
Reports
Report 82: Partial Defences to Murder: Diminished Responsibility (PDF, 383.7 KB), May 1997
- Tabled in parliament: 15 July 1997
- Legislative action: Crimes Amendment (Diminished Responsibility) Act 1997
- Judicial citation: Prosecutor v Delalic (United Nations, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, IT-96-21-A, 20 February 2001) [454]; R v Lavender (2005) 218 ALR 521 (HC) [89]; Clayton v The Queen [2006] HCA 58 [84]
- Journal articles: John Dawson, "Diminished responsibility: The difference it makes" (2003) 11 Journal of Law and Medicine 103
Report 83: Partial Defences to Murder: Provocation and Infanticide (PDF, 480.3 KB), October 1997
- Tabled in parliament: 27 November 1997
- Judicial citation: Davis v The Queen (1998) 100 ACrimR 573; Heron v The Queen (2003) 197 ALR 81 (HCA) [24]; R v Yasso (2004) 10 VR 466 (CA) [43]
Discussion paper
Discussion Paper 31: Provocation, Diminished Responsibility and Infanticide (PDF, 671.6 KB), August 1993
- Judicial citation: Sun-Rype Products Ltd v Archer Daniels Midland Company (Unreported, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Herold J, 11 September 2008) [70]
Terms of reference
- To review the partial defences of infanticide, provocation and diminished responsibility under s 22A, 23 and 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) respectively;
- To develop proposals for reform and clarification of the substantive elements of the defences.
We acknowledge Aboriginal people as the First Nations Peoples of NSW and pay our respects to Elders past, present and future. We acknowledge the ongoing connection Aboriginal people have to this land and recognise Aboriginal people as the original custodians of this land.