![](/anrowsjspui/anrows-header.jpg)
The ANROWS Digital Library provides links to a broad range of evidence in the violence against women sector including research papers, reports and resources.
The library is committed to providing access to high-quality and accessible (open access) evidence to ensure that researchers, policymakers, and practitioners have access to research and resources that are relevant to their work in the prevention of violence against women.
Please note that some content such as journal articles and books are restricted from public access due to copyright restrictions. Please refer to the information on the record to locate these resources externally.
If you have any questions or need help accessing resources, please contact publications@anrows.org.au.
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/22473
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2022.2109247 |
Type: | Journal Article |
Title: | Making no-case submissions in self-defence claims for primary victims of intimate partner violence charged with criminal offending |
Authors: | Tarrant, Stella |
ANRA Topic: | Policing and legal responses |
ANRA Population: | General population |
Year: | 2022 |
Publisher: | Routledge |
Abstract: | Investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries have found self-defence against intimate partner violence (IPV) difficult to perceive on the facts before them because of inaccurate assumptions about the nature of this form of violence. Reforms have focussed on making sure juries have a more accurate understanding of IPV so they can make fairer assessments. These legislative and common law reforms have opened up space for a different kind of legal argument, about the insufficiency of evidence in the state's case against a defendant: no-case submissions. If a state's case is based on a misunderstanding of a defendant's claim about what they were up against when they used force, there is no way of even beginning the legal assessments required by self-defence. No-case arguments are appropriately directed at the structural nature of this problem. This article examines two Australian cases, in which primary victims of IPV were acquitted of charges that they murdered or injured their abusive partner, following submissions that the state had failed to bring evidence capable of proving the defendant had not acted defensively and within reason. These cases show how criminal prosecutions against primary victims of IPV can be challenged. |
URI: | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/22473 |
Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles |
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.