ACT Criminal Law
National Criminal Law
NSW Criminal Law
QLD Criminal Law
VIC Criminal Law
WA Criminal Law
My legal matter concerning an application for a Domestic Violence Order was managed by Mr Thomas Allen. I am grateful for the outcome he obtained. Without Mr Allen and his ongoing support, I would be certain of a different result. It has been an extremely stressful period. Mr Allen’s astute ability to liaise on my behalf and his expertise was invaluable and for which I am grateful as I am now able to move forward. Thanking you
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Armstrong Legal and specifically Mr Thomas Allen for representing me in my recent case. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr Allen for the very professional delivery of his legal service. From the first time that I met Mr Allen, I was very impressed with his demeanour and delivery as he made me feel at ease knowing the severity of my case. Mr Allen not only gave me the possible positive outcomes of the case but also the realisation of the worst-case scenario as far as sentencing goes. … I will certainly be recommending Armstrong Legal to any of my friends or family needing representation in criminal matters. Thank you so very much.
Thank you for your representation and help. Fingers crossed for the next step and parole. I just want to say that from the first phone call to your office, your service has been outstanding and have put my mind at ease. I am glad I picked your number to ring.
Thank you Armstrong Legal, the lawyers that have helped over the past 3 years but more importantly, thank you to Thomas Allen for the major part you and Mr Buckland played. Cannot thank you enough. Cheers.
Hi all. I would like to thank Ms Lisa Riley for all her help with my legal issues this past month. It was the most harrowing experience of my life and thanks to her expertise, professionalism and knowledge of the law, I came out almost unscathed. I have no hesitation in recommending Lisa Riley and Armstrong Legal if you need help. The service is amazing and the cost was very minimal for the great outcome. Thank you Lisa for helping me in the most difficult time.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. My whole life I was thrown away, you made me feel like I did mean something. I could not have asked for a better lawyer. Your compassion and love for your job is inspiring. Your upfront and honesty were muchly appreciated, you are a beautiful person. Thank you for not giving up on me and thank you for all the work you put in. I wish you all the best for the future and I will be recommending you to everyone I know. You're amazing!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
The Partial Defence of Provocation (NSW)
In New South Wales, a person accused of murder can use extreme provocation as a ‘partial defence’. If a person charged with murder was responding to extreme provocation, they will be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder under section 23(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The defence of provocation cannot be used in relation to assaults or other violent offences.
The law on provocation as a defence to murder was substantially altered in 2014 and does not apply to murders allegedly committed before 1s June 2014.
- The act that caused death was done in response to extreme provocation towards the accused;
- The conduct amounted to a serious indictable offence;
- It caused the accused to lose their self-control; and
The provocative conduct could have caused an ordinary person to lose self-control to the point of intending to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the victim.
Conduct is not extreme provocation if it consists only of a non-violent sexual advance or if the accused person incited the conduct as an excuse to use violence against the victim.
The rationale behind provocation is that the level of a person’s moral culpability is lower when they have lost control as a result of another person’s provocation. A conviction for manslaughter rather than for murder is thought to be more reflective of the level of a person’s blameworthiness in this situation.
Supporters of the partial defence of provocation argue that it is important to retain a distinction between killing in response to a victim’s provocation and killing under other circumstances.
The partial defence of extreme provocation carries a ‘reverse onus’. This means that once the accused has raised this defence, the prosecution must prove that the accused was not acting under provocation. The accused does not have to prove that they were acting under provocation.
What the jury must consider
The jury must apply the below questions to the evidence before deciding whether the victim was killed in response to extreme provocation:
- Was the act that caused the victim’s death done in response to the deceased’s conduct towards or affecting the accused? If the jury is not satisfied that the act that caused death was done in response to conduct towards or affecting the accused, the defence of extreme provocation must fail.
- Was the provocative conduct a serious indictable offence? The jury must be satisfied that the victim’s conduct amounted to an indictable offence for the defence to succeed.
- Did the conduct cause the defendant to lose their self-control? If not then the defence of provocation fails.
- Could the conduct have caused an ordinary person to lose self-control to the point of intending to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the victim? An ordinary person is sober and of the same age and maturity as the defendant. The jury must not consider any of the accused’s other personal attributes. The response to consider is a possible response, not the probable response of an ordinary person. If the accused was voluntarily intoxicated by alcohol or a drug at the time of the alleged offence, this must not be taken into account.
Provocation before 2014
Before 2014 the defence of provocation had a significantly wider scope. In 2012 a man charged with murder was convicted of manslaughter after successfully arguing that he killed his wife in response to provocation consisting of her telling him that she did not love him, had never loved him and loved someone else.
A select committee was established to consider reforming the defence after community concerns were raised about the verdict in the case described above. Critics of the defence argued that provocation was commonly used by men charged with murdering female partners, that the defence was based on blaming the victim and that it privileged male violent reactions to insult.
In 2014, the defence of provocation was restricted to ensure that it could not be used in situations where the provocation claimed consisted of infidelity, the victim ending a relationship or making a non-violent sexual advance. The partial defence was retained, partially because of concerns that it was necessary to protect women who are long-term victims of domestic violence where it may be impossible to successfully run the defence of self-defence.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter please contact Armstrong Legal.
Intoxication is sometimes thought to be a criminal defence. Rather than a defence as such, intoxication by alcohol or drugs…
A criminal defence is an argument used to justify the actions of a person charged with a criminal offence. A…
The Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) was assented to in June 2020 and will replace the…
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth