Fairbrother Russell: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Third Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11985] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 There is a gap in the law only if one regards the common law as an inferior form of law to statute law. The Succession (Homicide) Bill of course still requires some common law definition because it defines homicide by referring to “intentionally or recklessly” killing someone but it does not clarify the circumstances of recklessness. However I imagine it would follow very much the definition of homicide in the Crimes Act. That of course would then include a person who was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter after having run a defence of provocation. Presumably it would also cover a reckless driver—someone who had in contemplation— 
John Hayes 
: A speeding Prime Minister? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
:—the member can make jokes about this but it is not really a very funny subject nor is the member’s joke—that his or her driving may lead to death which is perhaps a lower standard than that under the Crimes Act. So although this bill does take into our statute law the common law there still does remain a degree of common law imported into the definition of homicide. 
Homicide is simply a death caused by an unlawful act. The threshold for manslaughter is much lower than that in the Crimes Act so not all deaths caused by another person particularly by a spouse will result in a loss of right to succession. It is met only when people hold the intent to kill and that is proven by a court or where they act in a way where if they turn their minds to it they are so reckless that death is likely to follow and sadly death does follow. 
 So I agree with my learned friend Chris Finlayson that this bill is not before time. It delights in being an elegantly simple bill but it still of course has that lacuna in the definition where it comes to the term “homicide”. However that is probably a good thing when we talk about our common law tradition because it retains the ability of the courts to look at the circumstances of any particular killing that falls short of a conviction for murder. The third reading of this bill does represent an important step in the development in our law as we move to codify what has previously been a longstanding common law tradition understood by many in general terms but perhaps not in detail. I dare say that before the passing of this legislation many criminal lawyers who defend homicide cases day in and day out will have had difficulty in determining when a client was entitled to succeed under the estate of the person he or she had killed. To a large extent this bill now tidies up that lacuna in the law and I look forward to the development of the common law on the definition of homicide in giving a clarity to the term “recklessness”. Because there is a wide variety of situations in human affairs it is entirely appropriate that there be that area for the development of the common law as this legislation bill is carried forward on to our statute book. 
Including this area of law in a statute is long overdue. It reflects no radical departure from the common law but it does make the position crystal clear on our book for today. I support the bill. 
Debate interrupted.