HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-06-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2025)

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence) (12:00): I had reached the point where I was explaining what amendments part 2 of the bill makes to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, and one of the amendments that it makes is that a drug, for the purposes of the new sections, includes alcohol or any other substance capable of influencing mental functioning.

The consumption of a drug is taken to be non-therapeutic if it was not prescribed and/or consumed in accordance with the medical practitioner's and/or manufacturer's instructions. This definition allows the partial defence of excessive self-defence to remain available to a person whose genuine belief is affected by intoxication caused by an unexpected reaction to prescribed, or over-the-counter medication that has been taken in accordance with relevant instructions.

In order to address stakeholders' concerns that the bill could risk criminalising survivors of domestic, family and sexual violence by removing the partial defence of excessive self-defence for people who kill their abusive partner to protect themselves, the bill inserts a note in clauses 3 and 4. The note provides some guidance on the application of the new provisions; namely, that it does not prevent the operation of section 15B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which addresses offences committed in circumstances of domestic, family and sexual violence.

In particular, the note clarifies that it may be that the genuine belief of a defendant is not substantially affected by the consumption of a drug where there is evidence of other matters substantially informing or affecting the belief; for example, if the offence occurred in circumstances of ongoing perpetration of domestic, family and sexual violence.

To put it in other terms, the purpose of the note is to ensure that in determining the availability of the partial defence of excessive self-defence where a person kills a family member, the court can take into account any evidence of domestic, family or sexual violence in the determination of whether the defendant's genuine belief was substantially affected by the consumption of a drug, or whether the background of domestic, family and sexual violence has substantially informed or affected that belief.

It is intended that these changes will go some way to address the community's concerns about a defendant's ability to reduce their murder charge to manslaughter through excessive self-defence in circumstances where their actions were a direct result of their voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug and deter people from using substances that may affect their mental function and result in violent acts.

As I have said many times in this place, domestic, family and sexual violence is a terrible scourge that requires continued action from government to address, in partnership with the sector and our whole community. Our government is staunchly committed to making a real difference, and we will continue to relentlessly speak up and act and do what we can to help prevent and eradicate domestic, family and sexual violence.

This bill helps us to take another step forward. As I said in my opening remarks, I introduced this bill and speak again today with the offering of love and wholehearted condolences to all who loved and knew Ms Bell. I am absolutely sure that her family and friends must be deeply grieving, and my heart continues to ache for them. I again acknowledge their incredible courage, in amongst that grief, in calling for this legislative change. I am sure that I and everybody in this place carries them in our hearts and our minds as we continue our debate on this bill today.

As I also said in those opening remarks, this case really tragically highlighted that the law in our state, as it currently stands, enables a person who has been charged with murder to rely on the partial defence of excessive self-defence. A reliance on this partial defence can reduce a person's criminal liability from murder to manslaughter based on that genuinely held belief that their conduct was necessary and reasonable to defend themselves, even if that belief was formed on the basis of delusions or hallucinations and even if those delusions or hallucinations were caused by their self-induced intoxication.

I say again that that is frankly not good enough, and it is really clear from our community's justifiable outrage about the outcome of this horrific case that this reduction in liability is in no way consistent with community expectations. Today, in debating this bill, we say that we want that to change. As I spoke about earlier, our government is determined to drive policy, legislative practice, investment and change, and we have been doing so, changes that tackle that horrific scourge of domestic, family and sexual violence. We have taken a number of steps forward and this is another step forward.

In about six or seven weeks, the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence will provide us with a profound generational opportunity to drive change in how South Australia tackles this horrific scourge of violence against women and girls, as well as gender inequality that drives that horrific scourge. Our government very much looks forward to receiving the royal commissioner's report and to acting on recommendations that address any gaps in prevention, intervention, response and recovery and healing, and also to looking at how we much better coordinate our efforts across community, government and the sector.

I deeply hope that this important change that we take forward today honours Ms Bell and her family and that it also helps other families should such terrible tragedy ever be repeated. Domestic, family and sexual violence has absolutely no place in our community. I commend the bill to the house, and I seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

3—Amendment of section 15—Self defence

The proposed amendments to section 15 provide that a defendant is not entitled to rely on a defence under section 15(2) in relation to a charge of murder if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the genuine belief of the defendant, that the conduct to which the charge relates was necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose, was substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug.

4—Amendment of section 15A—Defence of property etc

The proposed amendments to section 15A provide that a defendant is not entitled to rely on a defence under section 15A(2) in relation to a charge of murder if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the genuine belief of the defendant, that the conduct to which the charge relates was necessary and reasonable for a purpose referred to in section 15A(2)(a), was substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:09): I indicate I am the lead speaker for the opposition. I indicate the opposition's support for the bill, and I adopt much of what the minister has said in bringing the government's speech to the chamber. The restriction on the partial defence is now in terms that are more practically able to be applied than what it was as originally circulated. It has benefited from the advice, including of the relevant committee of the Law Society, in two respects. The use of the word 'intoxication' in the draft has been, as I read it, substituted for 'reflection' to provision for the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug and the operative condition that that has induced remains being substantially affected by that voluntary consumption of a non-therapeutic drug.

The second way that the draft has been affected by that advice is, as I understand it, by the addition of the note to which the minister has just now referred. The effect of that will be that the partial defence might remain available in circumstances where, as the minister has described, there might be one or more substantial effects. I am not exactly sure how that is going to pan out in terms of the way that the court will have to deal with it, but the way I understood the minister to describe the note, which will have to stand on its own terms, is that, where there are competing substantial effects, including the example given in the note but not limited to that example, then it may be that it is open to the court for there to be a finding that the genuine belief of the defendant is not substantially affected by the consumption of the relevant drug, the threshold being only that there is evidence of other matters substantially informing or affecting the belief.

The example that is given is that the offence occurred in circumstances of family violence. I just highlight that is no more than an example, so it is expressly non-exhaustive. I appreciate that some emphasis might be placed in these circumstances on an ameliorating effect for an accused person, where the leading of that evidence might be open to—by the prosecution or the accused, and perhaps in combination—the note referring to there being such evidence. That might mean, for practical purposes, that there is an accused person who is substantially affected by the voluntary non-therapeutic consumption of a drug but that person is also substantially affected by, as the note says, other matters.

We have seen a lot of law reform over the past generation that has raised what was described for some period of time as battered wife syndrome, the circumstances in which someone is subjected to violence that is perpetrated over a sustained period of time and that person tragically perpetrates an assault or some serious attack upon the perpetrator of that sustained abuse on them, and the way the court deals with that, the circumstances where the person is not responding immediately to circumstances of acute violence but rather responding to what has been perpetrated upon them over a long period of time.

I hear the minister addressing the note perhaps in those terms. I just repeat and highlight again that the note is expressed in non-exhaustive terms; there may be other examples. That is the circumstance that has been highlighted by the government as a purpose of the note. I address those two matters in particular, in part as a means of noting the valuable input of the Law Society. I do not put it as high as the Law Society having come to a point of endorsing the change, but I do read the changes between the draft and what we are debating now as being responsive to those concerns.

Of course, I adopt and repeat a reflection on the human tragedy that has been a specific motivator for these changes. I think it is important to reflect upon that as legislators. It is important that legislation is of a general application in the public interest, but there are circumstances where legislation comes to this place motivated by and responsive to particular outrageous circumstances that are unacceptable in the community, and this is one such example. We all, I am sure, extend our condolences to the victim's family in this case. To the extent that the family of Synamin Bell is following the progress of this legislation and finds it in any way of comfort, then that ought to be noted and understood as we legislate in this place.

The partial removal of the entitlement to rely on the defence applies to the section 15 provision, self-defence. It applies in exactly the same way to the section 15A defence, that is, defence of property. I will just note that as well. It is expressed in exactly the same way with exactly the same note, so there is therefore introduced in both respects that amendment to the defence of self-defence. As I said at the outset, the opposition supports the bill and I commend its passage through the house today.

Mr DIGHTON (Black) (12:19): Within criminal law there are several defences which, in line with community expectation, must be reviewed and amended from time to time. It is important that our laws reflect our evolving understanding of human psychology, trauma and social dynamics, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse and mental illness.

It is also vital that our community have confidence in our criminal justice system. I will summarise for the house a few reasons why that is. If our community believes that the courts are fair and sentences appropriate, they are more likely to accept the outcomes and cooperate within that system. As a result, it maintains respect for the authority of our criminal justice system and the alignment with our law enforcement authorities. Fair and consistent sentencing, as we know, can also deter future crime. When offenders are held accountable and sentences are seen as just, it can discourage others from committing similar offences and, as a result, supports social cohesion and community safety.

Public confidence in the fairness of process is also crucial for victims to feel that their suffering has been acknowledged and that justice has been served. In many ways, it is the lack of justice for victims and their families that has led to the introduction of this bill. This bill, referred to as Synamin's Law, is legislation that helped maintain the community's confidence in the criminal justice system.

As others have already explained, the bill was passed in honour of Ms Synamin Bell, who was horrifically killed by her partner. I extend my sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of Ms Bell, who have not only lost their loved one but who would also have been extremely disappointed and frustrated by the law that currently allows for a partial defence of excessive self-defence in cases where self-induced intoxication is a factor. I also recognise the advocacy of Ms Synamin Bell's sister Shen and her family and friends in seeking this amendment of the law.

The bill will now provide that excessive self-defence is unavailable if a defendant's genuine belief was 'substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug'. This bill amends section 15 and section 15A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to remove the availability of excessive self-defence for both defence of a person and property where the defendant's genuine belief is substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug to ensure that there is a consistent application of the partial defence.

As the member for Heysen noted, a note in the bill will clarify that a defendant's genuine belief may be considered to have not been substantially affected by self-induced intoxication if there is evidence of other factors which may have substantially informed the defendant's belief, such as where there is evidence of family or domestic violence. This provides some guidance to the courts in the application of the new provision and confirms it does not prevent the operation of section 15B.

'Drug' and 'non-therapeutic consumption of a drug' may have the same meaning as the consultation bill and mirror the definitions in 15C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. These definitions ensure that partial defence remains available to a person whose genuine belief is affected by intoxication which is caused by an unexpected reaction to prescribed medication or over-the-counter medication.

This bill addresses concerns raised in consultation regarding unjust outcomes for people with mental illnesses who may consume both recreational drugs along with therapeutic medication. The reference to the 'voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug' makes plain that it is only the non-therapeutic consumption of drugs that may operate to preclude the availability of partial defence. Domestic and family violence has no place in our society, and this bill complements other measures that the government is taking to prevent domestic and family violence.

I commend the bill to the house and thank the Attorney-General, his team and the department for their work in initiating this bill and ensuring that the community maintains confidence in our criminal justice system.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (12:24): I rise to support the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill 2025. On 12 March 2022, the Millicent community—and indeed the broader South Australian community—was shocked and sickened by the killing of Ms Synamin Bell by her partner, Cody Edwards. The crime itself was horrific in the extremity of its violence. Ms Bell's tragic death had a tremendous impact on her family, leaving her three young children to grow up without their mother and depriving many others in her family of a daughter, sister, family member and friend whom they greatly loved.

After killing Ms Bell, Mr Edwards was charged with murder, but he subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter. On 6 September 2024, the Supreme Court sitting at Mount Gambier sentenced Mr Edwards to 11 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years and 10 months. He was sentenced on the basis that as he was in a state of psychosis brought about by his voluntary consumption of hallucinogenic illicit drugs, he acted in excessive self-defence arising from a genuine belief that Ms Bell intended to kill him.

This distressing case made it starkly clear to the South Australian community that a person who has been charged with murder may have the opportunity to rely on a partial defence of excessive self-defence, reducing their criminal liability from murder to manslaughter, on the basis of a genuine belief that their conduct was necessary and reasonable to defend themselves, even in the event that such a belief was formed on the basis of delusions or hallucinations caused by self-induced drug intoxication.

While the defence successfully employed in Mr Edwards' case was a lawful one, it is certainly well out of step with community expectation that a person who knowingly chooses to induce a state of intoxication that may interfere with their ability to distinguish reality from delusion has the opportunity to use such circumstances to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, and thus to avoid facing the full force of the law that would otherwise apply.

Ms Bell's family was quite rightly devastated by the developments in the case and by the sentence that Mr Edwards received. They began advocating strongly for reform in this area of law, hoping that no other South Australian family will have to endure the particular added burden of trauma that they have experienced during these exceedingly difficult years in their lives.

The bill before us, known as Synamin's Law in honour of Ms Bell's life and in recognition of her family's advocacy, seeks to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to exclude the availability of excessive self-defence when a person's genuine belief that their conduct was necessary and reasonable to defend themselves has arisen from the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug. For the purposes of the legislation, the consumption of a drug is to be considered non-therapeutic unless the drug is prescribed by and consumed in accordance with the directions of a medical practitioner.

Section 15 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 relates to self-defence. In South Australia, self-defence provides a complete defence to a charged offence. It is available where the defendant genuinely believed their actions were necessary and reasonable to defend themselves, and the conduct was reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant believed to exist. In the event that a defendant can satisfy the test for self-defence in relation to a particular charge, they cannot be found guilty and must be acquitted.

In matters where the charge is murder, a partial defence of excessive self-defence is available where the defendant genuinely believed their actions were necessary and reasonable to defend themselves but the conduct was not reasonably proportionate to the threat the defendant believed to exist. Under existing arrangements, this is the case even in the event that such a belief was erroneously formed due to self-induced intoxication. Defendants who satisfy the test for excessive self-defence will not be found guilty of murder but of manslaughter.

These are the arrangements that led to the outcome in the case of Mr Edwards following his brutal killing of Ms Bell. The partial defence of excessive self-defence was open to Mr Edwards, and there is no suggestion that the court or the prosecution deserves to be criticised. The deficiency is clearly one that exists in our laws, and this bill intends to address that deficiency. Cases like this one are rare, but of course that is of no comfort to the family of Ms Bell. This tragedy has been more than sufficient to highlight the inadequacy of our existing legislative arrangements, and there is broad cross-partisan recognition in this parliament that we must act.

The bill provides that the defence of excessive self-defence will not be available if a defendant's genuine belief 'was substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug'. Clauses 3 and 4 propose to insert new sections 15(2a) and 15A(2a) to exclude the availability of a defence of excessive self-defence in relation to a charge of murder if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's genuine belief that their actions taken for a defensive purpose were necessary and reasonable was substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug. The exclusion of the partial defence of excessive self-defence in these circumstances will apply to both the defence of persons and of property to ensure the consistent application of the partial defence.

Importantly, under the bill, a note will clarify that a defendant's genuine belief may be considered not to have been substantially affected by self-induced intoxication if there is evidence of other factors that may have substantially informed the defendant's belief. An important example to cite is where there is evidence of prior family or domestic violence. The application of the new provisions will not prevent the operation of section 15B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which addresses offences that have been committed amid circumstances of family violence.

Drug and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug have the same meaning as in the consultation bill and mirror the definitions in section 15C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. These definitions ensure that partial defence remains available to a person whose genuine belief is affected by intoxication that has been caused by an unexpected reaction to medication that was prescribed to the person and was consumed in accordance with the medical practitioner's instructions or over-the-counter medications that had been consumed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

The bill addresses concerns raised in consultation in relation to unjust outcomes for people with mental illnesses who consume recreational drugs together with their therapeutic medication. The reference to voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug makes clear that it is only the non-therapeutic consumption of drugs that may operate to preclude the availability of the partial defence.

These reforms were developed following extensive consultation with law enforcement and the broader community. I would like to thank those who participated in the consultation, including members of the South Australian community who engaged with the YourSAy consultation and legal stakeholders. I want to extend particular recognition and thanks to the family of Synamin Bell, whose determination to see these reforms through is a testament to their love for her and to their desire to prevent other families from enduring the extent of hardship and trauma that they have gone through during this terrible period of their lives and that they must continue to live with.

It takes extraordinary strength to turn anguish into advocacy. Ms Bell's family has done a remarkable service to the South Australian community by advocating for these sensible and important changes to our laws. I am pleased to commend the bill to the house and I look forward to seeing it broadly supported.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (12:31): There are moments in this place when our work feels especially heavy, moments when we speak not just as lawmakers but as human beings, as community members and as people who carry the weight of others' grief. This is one of those moments. Today, I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill, a bill also known by a name that now carries deep significance: Synamin's Law.

This bill is a response to a tragedy that should never have happened: the death of Ms Synamin Bell, a vibrant 30-year-old woman from Mount Gambier. She was a daughter, a sister, a mother, a friend, and she should still be here. Her life was taken by a man who claimed he acted in fear, a fear brought on not by a credible threat but by a drug-induced paranoia. And because of how our laws currently stand, he was able to use the partial defence of excessive self-defence, a defence he relied on despite his altered mental state being the result of his own voluntary and non-therapeutic drug use. He was not found guilty of murder. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and he will be eligible for parole in early 2031, just nine years after taking a young woman's life.

Like so many South Australians, I find that incredibly hard to reconcile. Let me be clear: there is no fault with the court or the prosecution. The law as it stands allowed this and that is why we need to change it. South Australians rightly expect that the law will protect the vulnerable and not allow their memory to be diminished by legal technicalities that make no sense in real life.

When someone chooses to take drugs and their intoxication leads to violence, particularly lethal violence, the law must not excuse that choice. This bill seeks to ensure that the partial defence of excessive self-defence is no longer available when that belief, that perceived threat, is substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of drugs. In other words, if your fear was born from a state of intoxication you chose to enter, you cannot rely on that fear to escape full responsibility.

This builds on important legal reforms made in this chamber in recent years. It was before my time in this place, but others will recall the 2020 legislation to abolish the common law defence of provocation, a defence that, before it was repealed, allowed perpetrators to shift blame onto others, particularly in cases of domestic violence or perceived betrayal. That law change was long overdue. It recognised that our justice system must evolve with community standards and it placed the dignity and agency of victims at the centre of the legal response. Similarly, the bill will bring our laws on excessive self-defence into line with public expectation.

I want to speak briefly to what this bill will and will not do. This bill will protect the integrity of the justice system. It will close a legal loophole that allowed drug-induced paranoia to lessen the criminal responsibility for taking a life, but it will not impact those who act in genuine fear based on lived trauma or family violence. The bill includes a clarifying note that a genuine belief may still stand, even if a person was intoxicated, where that belief was substantially informed by prior abuse or other relevant factors. It does not override section 15B of the act that rightly allows the court to consider the broader context of family violence.

We have consulted carefully, and the bill has been crafted so that it does not disadvantage people living with mental illness or those who have adverse reactions to medications taken as prescribed. The focus here is on voluntary, non-therapeutic drug use, not prescribed medication, not Nurofen, not mental health treatment but only recreational intoxication that leads to violent behaviour.

I want to acknowledge the work of Attorney-General Kyam Maher for listening, for acting, and for crafting legislation that is compassionate but firm. I want to especially acknowledge Shen Bell, who is Synamin's sister, and all of Synamin's family and friends. In the weeks and months following Synamin's death, Shen turned her grief into purpose. She stood before the media. She spoke to MPs. She worked with advocates and lawyers and the wider Mount Gambier community to ensure that her sister's name would not be forgotten and that no other family would suffer the same injustice. I want to say to Shen: your strength is remarkable. Your sister would be so proud. We as a parliament are listening.

I know that laws like this cannot bring Synamin back, but they can honour her memory. They can draw a line in the sand and say, 'We will not let this self-inflicted intoxication excuse fatal violence. Not here, not in South Australia.' In my own community of Davenport, people are telling me that they want stronger protections. They want laws that recognise the value of life and reject excuses that shift blame onto victims, and they want a legal system that keeps up with their values. This is what this bill delivers.

But let's also acknowledge the deeper truth behind this legislation. It is not just about a single case, devastating as it was. It is about ensuring that our laws are strong enough to respond to the evolving ways in which harm is justified or minimised. It is about recognising that drug use cannot be a shield behind which perpetrators hide, and it is about rejecting the narrative, still sadly present in some courtrooms and corners of public commentary, that a victim's life is somehow worthless if the person who killed them was impaired. That is not justice. That is not what this parliament stands for. This bill says clearly that we expect accountability. We expect consequences for choices that lead to violence, and we will not accept diluted responsibility because someone chose to alter their state of mind.

I also want to reflect on the broader impact that cases like Synamin's have on community confidence in the justice system. When victims' families watch legal arguments unfold that seem to offer more protection to the accused than to the dead it shakes their faith. When sentencing outcomes feel out of step with community values it feeds cynicism, and when loopholes are exploited parliament has a duty to respond—not in haste and not for political pointscoring but with courage, compassion and clarity.

That is exactly what this bill does. It says that, while we understand the complexities of human behaviour and while we continue to support rehabilitation, mental health treatment and harm minimisation, we will never confuse understanding with excuse. Taking a life is the most serious of crimes, and when that decision is made under the influence of drugs taken voluntarily the law must not allow that to be treated as anything less than what it is: a tragedy that demands accountability.

This reform matters. It matters for families, it matters for victims, and it matters for the credibility of our justice system. Most of all, it matters because it says Synamin's life mattered. Her name will now live on in South Australian law, not as a statistic or a footnote but as a symbol of how love, grief and advocacy can change a system. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (12:39): I rise to speak in full support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill 2025, a bill born not just from a tragic case but from passionate advocacy, clear-eyed public concern and the recognition that the law must always serve justice in line with community expectations.

At its heart, this bill seeks to close a gap—a painful and consequential gap—in our criminal law. It addresses a loophole that, while legally sound, has left many South Australians bewildered and distressed, wondering how such an outcome could possibly be just. Let us be clear about what is at stake. This bill is about ensuring that those who voluntarily intoxicate themselves with drugs cannot hide behind that intoxication to lessen responsibility for taking another human life. Before I go any further, I want to speak about the reason this bill has come before us. That reason is Ms Synamin Bell—a vibrant, loved and cherished woman, whose life was tragically cut short.

On 12 March 2022, Ms Bell was killed by her partner, Cody James Edwards. During his trial, Mr Edwards did not deny causing her death. Instead, he claimed he acted in excessive self-defence, that he believed Ms Bell intended to kill him and, acting under the grip of a full-blown paranoia psychosis caused by his own consumption of psychoactive drugs, he struck first. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, not murder, and on 6 September 2024 he was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight years and 10 months. Because of time already served, he will be eligible for parole in January 2031.

Let us be absolutely clear: there is no criticism of the court in this matter. The sentencing was legally sound. The prosecution did its job, the legal framework was followed but the outcome has deeply disturbed many, especially the family and friends of Ms Bell, and the community that saw in this case something profoundly unjust. What followed was a truly courageous act of public advocacy.

Ms Bell's sister, Shen, and her family and supporters, channelled their grief into action. They did not sit in silence. They spoke up, they rallied others, they asked difficult but fair questions of the law and, crucially, they did not ask for vengeance. They asked for fairness. They asked that intoxication when self-induced should not serve as a basis to downgrade a charge of murder. Their call is being heard today and I want to take this opportunity to pay genuine, heartfelt tribute to Shen and all those who stood beside her. This bill would not exist without their persistence, clarity and strength.

So what does this bill actually do? In plain English, it removes the partial defence of excessive self-defence for people who claim they killed someone because they believed they were under threat but only came to that belief due to a mental state caused by voluntary drug use. Let me break that down.

Under current law in South Australia, if someone kills another person but says they genuinely believed they were in danger and needed to defend themselves, the law recognises self-defence as a complete defence. If the force they used was more than necessary, but they still believed they were under threat, the law provides a partial defence called excessive self-defence. This can downgrade murder to manslaughter. Critically, even if that belief was the result of a drug-induced psychosis, the law still accepts this.

This is what happened in the case Mr Edwards. He believed, under the influence of drugs, that Ms Bell was going to kill him, and that belief—even though it was delusional and drug-induced—allowed the partial defence to apply. I am pleased to say that this bill changes that. It says that if your belief that you were in danger was substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of drugs, then you cannot rely on that partial defence. This reform makes intuitive sense to the vast majority of South Australians. We do not let people escape responsibility for their actions when they voluntarily drink to excess, and we should not let them do it with drugs either.

The law should not reward a person for placing themselves in a distorted mental state and then claiming diminished responsibility. This is not about removing defences entirely. If someone truly was defending themselves and that belief was formed in a sober, or medically justified state the defence remains. This is about removing a loophole, a narrow, but a very important one.

The bill has been carefully crafted. It does not apply to people who suffer unexpected side-effects from prescription medicine, or who follow medical instructions. The definitions in the bill make this clear. If a person has a psychiatric illness and takes their medication as directed and something goes wrong, they are not excluded from relying on a defence. But if someone consumes recreational drugs, or mixes them with medication against medical advice, they must take responsibility for those consequences.

We also ensure that victims of domestic violence are not unfairly penalised. The bill includes guidance that if there is credible evidence of family or domestic violence and that this, rather than intoxication, influenced the person's belief, then that belief may still be considered valid. This is a necessary and sensitive balancing act, and I believe the bill strikes that balance well.

Some may argue that cases like this are rare, and fortunately they are, but even rare injustices must be corrected, because one case, like Ms Bell's, is one too many—one family left to grieve a daughter, a sister, a friend and then told that the person responsible will serve less time because they were high when they committed the heinous act. That is a gap in the law that we cannot accept. This bill ensures that South Australia's laws better reflect our core values that include personal responsibility, justice and the protection of the innocent.

Before I conclude, I want to offer sincere thanks to those who helped bring this bill to parliament. To the family and friends of Ms Bell, thank you for your strength and your unwavering advocacy. Your campaign will leave a legacy for change. To the drafters at the office of parliamentary council, to the officials within the Attorney-General's Department and to those within ministerial offices, thank you for your diligent, thoughtful and timely work.

With this bill we are not simply amending legislation, we are recognising that intoxication, when chosen, cannot serve as a shield from full accountability. We are affirming that victims matter, that families deserve justice and that advocacy in the face of grief can lead to meaningful change. We owe it to Synamin Bell and to those who loved her to ensure that our laws reflect both fairness and reason. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence) (12:48): Can I please thank everybody who has contributed so thoughtfully and with such care for the family, the friends and the other loved ones of Ms Bell in particular. Thank you to those who have spoken: the member for Heysen, the member for Davenport, the member for Playford, the member for Black and the member for Florey.

I was listening to all of those speeches and it is very clear that our addressing of this particular shortfall in our legislation is something that all of us, rightly, agree is necessary. It is necessary because we know as community leaders, as a parliament, it is incumbent upon us to do all that we possibly can in legislation, and indeed in policy, practice and investment, to help to prevent the terrible scourge of domestic, family and sexual violence and to help eradicate it.

Absolutely at its heart, this legislation is progressing a legislative change that speaks to action that we have decided to take to address a shortfall in the suite of legislative policy and practice, measures around that shared aim to help eradicate the terrible scourge of domestic, family and sexual violence. It also reflects the expectation of community about how we deal with those who commit terrible acts of domestic, family and sexual violence.

I very much thank the Attorney-General, Minister Maher from the other place, and his ministerial office for working toward this very thoughtful legislation that has a very clear, practical outcome. I also thank the officials from the Attorney-General's Department who have worked really hard toward this important piece of legislation.

As I did in my earlier remarks, I thank the family, the friends and the other loved ones of Ms Bell. To lose a loved one is utterly tragic and heartbreaking. To lose a loved one in these particular circumstances is just horrific. To be dealing with the grief that comes with that particular horrific and preventable loss and, whilst you are dealing with the grief of the loss of your loved one in a circumstance that should never ever happen, to then courageously advocate for change to ensure that that loophole, which has existed in our legislation and been brought to life through these terrible circumstances and which must absolutely be addressed is really brave.

I will continue to hold all of the loved ones of Ms Bell in my heart and in my mind. I am so pleased that we can take this step forward to prevent such a reliance on a defence that I think to our whole community is utterly unacceptable. I am pleased that we have been able to reverse the ability for a perpetrator to be able to rely on that particular defence. This is a really important step forward, and it is a step forward that sits amongst a range of legislative measures that our government has undertaken in our ongoing quest to do all that we can to tackle the scourge of domestic, family and sexual violence.

We are making sure that we are implementing measures and changes that work across those four domains that are articulated in the national plan to end violence against women and children. Those domains are prevention, early intervention, response and recovery, and healing. I am so pleased that both through our national partnership funding and through our state funding we have implemented a range of measures across those four domains, including really important legislative measures.

Amongst those legislative measures is the step that we are taking so importantly today. Also amongst those measures are the laws that we have already passed to include the experience of domestic violence as a ground of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act. That is so important for all those women who were telling us, amongst their experience of domestic, family and sexual violence, of the way that it impacted their lives and their ability to participate in the workforce. Through that law and through listening to those brave survivors, we have been able to make sure that when they are discriminated against—in the course of their work, or in the course of seeking accommodation, or in a range of other ways contemplated by the Equal Opportunity Act—finally, they have a recourse in the Equal Opportunity Act should they be discriminated against.

Similarly, importantly for those survivors of domestic, family and sexual violence, we have passed laws in South Australia to ensure that, again, those who survive experiences of domestic, family and sexual violence have an industrial environment where they can maintain their connection to the workplace and their means of earning a wage. The legislation that I am talking about, of course, is the legislation that we have passed that now enshrines 15 days of paid domestic, family and sexual violence leave into the state industrial relations system, the state Fair Work Act.

That means that the many employees in the public sector and the 11,000-odd employees across the local government sector can now access that paid domestic, family and sexual violence leave. The reason that is important is for all of those practical reasons that arise when a person survives an experience of domestic, family and sexual violence. It may be that particular time is needed to attend legal, medical, housing or finance appointments. It may mean that a particular experience that is happening or that has happened has rendered it very difficult for them to present at their particular workplace. It may mean that they are in a crisis situation where it is simply impossible to attend their workplace, sometimes sadly when they have fled particular situations.

For all those practical reasons, that legislation is incredibly important, but it is also incredibly important because, again, it maintains a person's connection to their workplace and their means of earning an income. When a person has experienced domestic, family and sexual violence, that is incredibly important in terms of their economic wellbeing and their ability to participate in work and in our economy. We know that particular piece of legislation is very important in terms of our need, in a broader sense, to grow and sustain women's economic participation in the economy. With those comments, I will conclude my remarks.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence) (12:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT