The term Battered Woman Syndrome came to national attention when Christchurch woman Gay Rosemary Oakes used it as a defence after she murdered her husband and buried him in her backyard in 1993.
Oakes said Douglas Stuart Gardner had abused her physically and emotionally for years.
In desperation, she put drugs in his coffee then, while he was sleepy, gave him more drugs, resulting in an overdose.
She then dug his grave.
But the defence was unsuccessful - Oakes was found guilty of murder and received a mandatory life sentence.
Now, more than eight years on, she may get out of jail early and the Law Commission has recommended that New Zealand's laws should be changed to better reflect the legal issues faced by abused women.
It also wants to give judges the power to exercise discretion when sentencing people for murder, imposing lighter terms in special cases.
In its report on "criminal defences with particular reference to battered defendants," tabled in Parliament yesterday, the commission recommends changing the Crimes Act to take into account factors affecting battered women.
The commission has sought to provide "a more level playing field for those who, sometimes after long years of suffering and brutalisation, arrive at the courtroom door to face criminal charges which have their genesis in the abuse by their intimate partners."
It recommends that the term Battered Woman Syndrome be dropped, saying it does not adequately or comprehensively describe the nature of battering relationships, or the effects on victims.
Instead, it says, expert evidence should be brought on the nature and dynamics of violent relationships.
Juries would be helped by clear directions linking such evidence to elements of the defence.
But the commission stops short of recommending that those directions be mandatory.
What is the Law Commission and why was it asked to write its report?
The commission is an independent, publicly funded, central advisory body established by statute to review, reform and develop the law of New Zealand.
It has the power to make recommendations only.
Its president is Justice David Baragwanath.
In 1999, in response to criticism that existing legal defences were not protecting people who committed criminal offences as a reaction to domestic violence, the commission began a review of the substance and application of such defences.
How bad is domestic violence in New Zealand and who commits most of it?
The commission says domestic violence is a major problem in New Zealand, "with little cause for optimism."
New Zealand seems to have a much higher prevalence of such violence than the United States, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Australia and England.
The commission quotes the authors of the first national study of men's abuse of women partners, which concluded that our yearly rate is almost double that of other studies, and the abusers' lifetime rate is 1 1/2 times as high.
The study, based on a representative sample of 2000 men, found one in five had committed at least one physically abusive act in the past year, and one in three had committed such an act at least once in his lifetime.
The commission says it remained "gender neutral" throughout the project.
"But it is incontestable that the large majority of adult victims of serious domestic violence are women."
The report also mentions studies showing that when women attack their partners they do so differently from men.
"No woman punched her husband about the head and shoulders, or in the stomach. Punches were aimed at the chest.
"No husband was attacked in the groin.
"No husband was threatened with a gun or chased with guns, knives, axes, broken bottles," says the report.
What is Battered Woman Syndrome?
The commission does not like the term, saying it leads to confusion.
It prefers to refer to "expert evidence on battering relationships."
The commission received a number of submissions criticising the term because it was said to promote a rigid, limited view of battered women's experiences and behaviour that over-emphasised their psychological reactions.
The word "syndrome" was considered misleading because it implied that battered women suffered from a mental disability.
It was also suggested that the term did not take into account cultural diversity, because Maori women make up a disproportionate number of battered women and often suffer more extreme violence.
The commission says Battered Woman Syndrome is based on the theories of the cycle of violence in violent relationships and learned helplessness.
Cycle of violence: This theory says battering in domestic relationships is neither random nor constant, but occurs in cycles.
The first phase is a period of building tension that leads up to a second phase, an "acute battering incident."
Phase three consists of kind, loving, contrite behaviour by the batterer, providing positive reinforcement for the victim to stay in the relationship.
Learned helplessness. This holds that people who experience domestic violence they are unable to control will, over time, develop a condition that prevents them from perceiving or acting on chances to escape.
The report says there is strong support in literature on the subject for the suggestion that domestic violence is often used as a way of gaining power and control over the victim.
What does the commission say about directions to juries on expert evidence?
The judge must ensure that an accused's defence is properly put before the jury, says the report.
"Juries are likely to be assisted by clear directions linking the different aspects of the expert evidence on battering relationships to the various elements of the defences."
The commission does not consider legislation making directions mandatory is necessary.
But it recommends including some guidance on suitable directions in the Criminal Jury Trial Bench Book.
"We cannot emphasise too strongly that it is incumbent on defence counsel to be fully aware of the nature, dynamics and social context of domestic violence, so that they will know when domestic violence issues should be explored with their client."
What does the commission say about self-defence?
It considers that the argument of self-defence should not be excluded where the defendant is using force against a danger that is not imminent but is inevitable.
In many cases, the commission says, the use of force will be reasonable only if the danger is imminent, because the defendant will have an opportunity to avoid the danger or seek help.
"However, this ... may not be the case where the defendant has been subject to ongoing physical abuse within a coercive intimate relationship and knows that further assaults are inevitable."
The commission recommends a law change to make it clear that situations can arise in which the use of force is reasonable where the danger is not imminent but inevitable.
Juries should decide what force is reasonable in a case of self-defence.
The commission considered the idea of a new defence for battered defendants. It looked at a Western Australia proposal to introduce "tyrannicide," a defence for people trying to free themselves from "private tyrants."
But the commission does not support the creation of a special complete defence for victims of domestic violence who kill or assault their abusers.
"It is preferable that the general requirement of reasonableness in self-defence be interpreted so that it can incorporate the use of force in self-defence against violence that may not be imminent, but which is necessary to save life or limb."
What was the view on mandatory life sentences for murder?
A person convicted of murder is automatically sentenced to life imprisonment and may not be considered for parole for at least 10 years.
The commission notes that supporters of discretionary sentencing for murder point to varying degrees of culpability.
Murder is not necessarily more heinous than any other crime - an armed robbery during which the offender deliberately causes grievous bodily harm may be worse than a mercy killing, the report says.
Mandatory life sentences for murder should be replaced by limited discretion in sentencing, say commissioners.
"There should be an assumption that a conviction for murder will carry a life sentence.
"However, where strongly mitigating factors exist - relating either to the offence or the offender - that would render a life sentence clearly unjust, the judge may give a lesser sentence."
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
South Island girls' cricket team stranded in Dubai storm
Mum says parents on the trip have been more stressed and the girls have 'just adapted'.