Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14724 Record ID: d91c270b-466c-4576-92bd-436b71e316fa
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Tolmie, Julia | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Stubbs, Julie | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:14:50Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:14:50Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 1999 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | 23, 1999 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0025-8938 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14724 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Melbourne University Law Review Association | en |
| dc.subject | Homicide | en |
| dc.subject | Legal issues | en |
| dc.title | Falling short of the challenge?: a comparative assessment of the Australian use of expert evidence on the battered woman syndrome | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Melbourne University law review | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 2194 | en |
| dc.identifier.url | http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/11430/20010621-0000/www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/1999/27.html | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Journal article/research paper | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Invalid URL | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | National | en |
| dc.description.notes | Examines the use, in Australian courts, of expert testimony concerning battered woman syndrome (BWS), particularly in relation to cases where a woman who has killed her abusive partner seeks to raise the defence of self-defence. The evolution of the concept of BWS in the US and in Canada is reviewed and contrasted to the Australian experience. It is suggested that important differences between these countries and Australia exist. Specifically, the purpose of introduction of evidence, the nature and range of evidence used and rules relating to who can give evidence of BWS have varied markedly. Utilising recent case examples, the authors highlight the relatively narrow interpretation and use of BWS which has been applied by Australian courts. Specific challenges for the law in this area which have emerged from the cases and the literature are then outlined, including issues of same sex violence, ethnicity/ race and the situation for women who fight back. Concludes that although some positive outcomes have been achieved in recent years, the absence of a leading judgement on the matter and the failure of Australian courts to recognise ‘social framework evidence’ are significant barriers to further development in this area of the law. | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Melbourne University law review | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2001-11-20 | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.