Guy Nathan: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5650] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill is very important and is before the House tonight for its first reading. First of all I congratulate the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power on bringing this bill into the House—indeed very swiftly. I know that the bill was on his work programme and I know that this issue has been around for a while now. I see that the Law Commission first recommended the repeal of this law in 2001 and it was the subject of a stand-alone report in 2007. So it is great to see that this new Government and indeed the Minister of Justice are getting on with a very robust work programme. 
The defence of provocation is included in section 169 of the Crimes Act and states that a verdict of murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the offender can show that the crime was committed under provocation. Recent examples have illustrated the significant issues raised by this defence. Extensive consideration by the Law Commission and other bodies as I have just mentioned has emphasised the need for the defence to be abolished. 
The trial process including sentencing is often deeply traumatic for the families and friends of the victim. The distress caused to those close to the victim will be greatly reduced if any defence argument as to provocation-type issues is confined to sentencing. This is because the ability to adduce evidence is far less at sentencing. Provocation issues will not be canvassed before a jury and sentencing generally lasts only for an hour or so. 
The other important point is we believe that the risk that juries will acquit altogether when confronted with an intentional but provoked killing is very low. They will still sometimes convict of manslaughter if an alternative defence such as a lack of intent has been run but they are most unlikely to let an offender walk free on the grounds of sympathy alone. 
The repeal of provocation as a partial defence to murder from the statute book is indeed the preferred option. It is not proposed that provocation is considered as an express mitigating factor at sentencing. Rather the sentencing judge will be able to use his or her discretion under the Sentencing Act 2002 to consider whether life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust given the particular circumstances of the case. If the sentencing judge determines that a life sentence is justified then he or she can take into account the existence and degree of provocation together with all the other relevant factors in fixing the length of the minimum non-parole period. 
The repeal of the partial defence would make factors such as the alleged sexual behaviour of the victim and the nature of the relationship with the defendant less relevant at the trial—the emphasis upon such factors in evidence is resulting in a significant amount of distress for families and friends of the victim. 
This is an important bill that is heading to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I notice that it is only about six pages long but it is extremely worthy and I know that the Justice and Electoral Committee under the very good chairmanship of Chester Borrows will be looking forward to hearing the many submissions it is likely to receive from the New Zealand public on a very important issue. I commend this bill to the House.