Page 4168 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
conclusion. What the commission advocated against was an intention to cause a permanent injury to health as a mental element of murder.
In relation to the United Kingdom Law Commission report on murder, manslaughter and infanticide, which was published in 2006, the committee suggests that the report does not recommend including an intent to commit serious harm in the offence of murder. But this is not the case. In fact, the United Kingdom report supports the government’s view on the issue. The United Kingdom report states on page 32 that the commissioners recommend that:
… second degree murder should encompass … killings intended to cause serious injury …
So the United Kingdom report did say that killings intended to cause injury should be considered as a form of murder.
Mr Seselja: Second-degree murder.
MR CORBELL: Second-degree murder but murder nevertheless. The committee cites the early pages of the UK commission’s report but fails to take note of paragraph 122, which states that the commissioners “do not recommend that killing through an intention to do serious injury should simply be regarded as manslaughter”. The committee goes on to say:
Manslaughter is an inadequate label for a killing committed with that degree of culpability.
I think that is an important point. Recommendation 9.6 on page 172 of the UK report clearly places intention to cause serious injury in the offence of murder.
Our standing committee did not refer to the Irish Law Reform Commission report on homicide, published in 2008. Again, the Irish Law Reform Commission supports the government’s approach; namely, that intention to cause serious injury should be retained as a fault element for murder. That report states:
The Commission still believes that those who intentionally inflict serious injury on others cannot deny the latent knowledge they possess about the fragility of the human body.
For all of these reasons, the government believes its original bill is the right approach for the ACT. I would like to thank the committee for its detailed inquiry and for the opportunity to appear before it. I recognise that there are a range of views in the legal profession about this bill, as there are in the broader community. But I believe absolutely and fundamentally that people in Canberra expect the law of murder to be on the same basis as a murder offence in Queanbeyan, in Goulburn, in Yass, in Cooma or in any other part of the country.
That is the issue which the ACT is seeking to address. It is not a radical reform and it is consistent with the common law. It is consistent with the common law view of murder. That is what the government is advocating.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .