Go Back

Excessive self-defence and self-induced intoxication

Have your say: should alleged violent offenders be able to rely on the partial defence of excessive self-defence when their mental state is substantially affected by self-induced intoxication?

What's being decided?

Currently in South Australia, excessive self-defence provides a partial defence to the charge of murder, reducing it to manslaughter.

Excessive self-defence is available when the defendant genuinely believes their actions were necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose, but their actions were not reasonably proportionate to the threat that they believe existed.

Whether or not the defendant held a genuine belief is a subjective assessment and must be assessed from the defendant’s point of view. Currently, it does not matter that the defendant’s belief was mistakenly based on delusions resulting from, for example, the influence of alcohol or drugs, if it is established that the defendant held a genuine belief that their actions were necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose.

We’re asking all interested South Australians: Should we amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA) to exclude excessive self-defence if the defendant was substantially affected by self-induced intoxication?

Background

A recent high-profile SA trial has prompted calls for law reform.

Mr Cody Edwards, who was charged with the murder of his partner, Ms Synamin Bell on 12 March 2022, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, admitting he killed her after consuming psychedelic drugs. The matter has highlighted shortcomings in the state’s excessive self-defence laws, which allow for a partial defence to murder in cases of self-induced intoxication.

Changes to the CLCA would prevent a defendant charged with murder from relying on excessive self-defence if their genuine belief that their actions were necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose was substantially affected by self-induced intoxication.

The community has been vocal with their calls for reform - a petition from Ms Bell’s family has already gathered more than 1,850 signatures.

Provide your feedback to help ensure our laws are fit for purpose.

Get involved

Share your feedback on legislative changes to prevent a defendant charged with murder from relying on excessive self-defence if their genuine belief that their actions were necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose was substantially affected by self-induced intoxication.

Find out more:

Have your say by:

Please note that we may make submissions (including name and address details) publicly available. If you do not wish for this to happen, mark your submission ‘Confidential - Not for Publication’ and provide your reasons for this.

Please be aware that unless you make a request for confidentiality, we may refer to or publish the information contained in your submission. Any material identified as ‘confidential’ is still subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1991 and, while we will make an effort to keep the material confidential, in some circumstances we might disclose it under that Act. Where disclosure of information may identify you, we will attempt to consult with you under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 before the documents are disclosed.

What are the next steps?

We will consider your feedback on potential changes to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and provide a report to the Attorney-General.

We will publish a feedback summary on this website.


Have your say: should alleged violent offenders be able to rely on the partial defence of excessive self-defence when their mental state is substantially affected by self-induced intoxication?

What's being decided?

Currently in South Australia, excessive self-defence provides a partial defence to the charge of murder, reducing it to manslaughter.

Excessive self-defence is available when the defendant genuinely believes their actions were necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose, but their actions were not reasonably proportionate to the threat that they believe existed.

Whether or not the defendant held a genuine belief is a subjective assessment and must be assessed from the defendant’s point of view. Currently, it does not matter that the defendant’s belief was mistakenly based on delusions resulting from, for example, the influence of alcohol or drugs, if it is established that the defendant held a genuine belief that their actions were necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose.

We’re asking all interested South Australians: Should we amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA) to exclude excessive self-defence if the defendant was substantially affected by self-induced intoxication?

Background

A recent high-profile SA trial has prompted calls for law reform.

Mr Cody Edwards, who was charged with the murder of his partner, Ms Synamin Bell on 12 March 2022, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, admitting he killed her after consuming psychedelic drugs. The matter has highlighted shortcomings in the state’s excessive self-defence laws, which allow for a partial defence to murder in cases of self-induced intoxication.

Changes to the CLCA would prevent a defendant charged with murder from relying on excessive self-defence if their genuine belief that their actions were necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose was substantially affected by self-induced intoxication.

The community has been vocal with their calls for reform - a petition from Ms Bell’s family has already gathered more than 1,850 signatures.

Provide your feedback to help ensure our laws are fit for purpose.

Get involved

Share your feedback on legislative changes to prevent a defendant charged with murder from relying on excessive self-defence if their genuine belief that their actions were necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose was substantially affected by self-induced intoxication.

Find out more:

Have your say by:

Please note that we may make submissions (including name and address details) publicly available. If you do not wish for this to happen, mark your submission ‘Confidential - Not for Publication’ and provide your reasons for this.

Please be aware that unless you make a request for confidentiality, we may refer to or publish the information contained in your submission. Any material identified as ‘confidential’ is still subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1991 and, while we will make an effort to keep the material confidential, in some circumstances we might disclose it under that Act. Where disclosure of information may identify you, we will attempt to consult with you under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 before the documents are disclosed.

What are the next steps?

We will consider your feedback on potential changes to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and provide a report to the Attorney-General.

We will publish a feedback summary on this website.


Page last updated: 09 Sep 2024, 02:08 PM