HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-05-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 February 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:31): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill 2025. The bill was introduced following the death of Ms Synamin Bell, who was killed by her partner, Mr Cody Edwards, in Millicent in 2022. Edwards had voluntarily taken an illicit hallucinogenic drug and claimed to believe he was acting in self-defence. That belief was the result of drug-induced psychosis. He was charged with murder but ultimately convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to just 11 years.

That outcome shocked the community, and rightly so. It is unacceptable that a person can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter because of a mental state they brought on by taking drugs or alcohol. This bill responds to that gap. It amends sections 15 and 15A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 which deal with the defences of self-defence and defence of property.

Clause 3 inserts a new subsection (2a) into section 15. It prevents a defendant from relying on excessive self-defence if their belief that the conduct was necessary or reasonable was substantially affected by the voluntary, non-therapeutic use of a drug. Clause 4 makes the same change to section 15A concerning defence of property. The definition of drug includes alcohol and any substance that affects mental functioning. Use is considered non-therapeutic unless it is prescribed and taken as directed, or used according to instructions in the case of over-the-counter medication.

This bill does not abolish the defence of excessive self-defence. It limits its use. If the defendant's judgement was seriously impaired by drugs or alcohol they took of their own accord, that defence cannot apply. There is an important safeguard: this bill does not block the operation of section 15B, which allows courts to consider evidence of family violence. If a belief stems from a pattern of abuse, not from intoxication, the defence may still be available. The law should not excuse lethal violence caused by intoxication.

The community expects the law to hold individuals accountable for actions taken under the influence of substances they choose to consume. This bill meets that expectation. It upholds the principle of personal responsibility and helps restore public confidence in the justice system. The opposition supports the bill and I commend it to the chamber.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:33): I also rise to speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill 2025. As has just been outlined, this bill is, as we know, in response to the tragic case of Millicent woman Ms Synamin Bell, whose partner, Cody James Edwards, took hallucinogenic drugs before killing her in 2022.

It is a story that made headline news, and one that outraged communities across the state—and beyond, I am sure. It is one of those situations where I think community expectations, the outrage, the sympathy for Ms Bell's family and friends, probably outweighs the concerns of legal commentators in this space who may have some issues with what the bill is attempting to achieve. But such was the outrage and backlash from the community and also from the YourSAy website—as it should be—that the government undertook that, I think it is fair to say, the community expectation is that these laws are passed.

I do note that the Law Society has written previously, I think it was late last year, to the Attorney in relation to this bill. There will always be issues that the Law Society point to—and I am the first one to look at them—and there may be challenges as this bill progresses which we may potentially have to revisit in the future, but I think that has to be weighed against the very strong and firm and right views of the community when we are talking about excessive self-defence and how that operates as a partial defence.

In this particular case, as we have just heard, we had a situation where there was a very highly publicised sentencing. The defendant had experience of paranoia psychosis after consuming those psychedelic or hallucinogenic or psychoactive drugs and initially sought to rely on the defence of excessive self-defence. As we know also, partway through that trial the Office of the DPP indicated it would accept a plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter, and the defendant was subsequently rearraigned and sentenced.

In respect of the charge of murder, as we know, the defence of excessive self-defence operates as a partial defence, reducing the offence to manslaughter. That is in effect what these laws are seeking to address, so that defendants charged with similar offending to that which has been described in this very tragic case are prevented from invoking the defence.

I think we are all on the same page when it comes to the public sentiment and certainly the sentiment in this place about why this is necessary. I accept also that there may be some technical concerns from the legal fraternity about how it works in practice, if and when those arise, and I am sure we will no doubt be back here to deal with them. But in principle, I think we are doing the right thing by passing this bill and I think that the community expects us to step up in this way and deal with this sort of issue.

We may not be able to prevent another tragic case like the one involving Synamin Bell, but you certainly want to do all you can to prevent the use of those defences in the way that it transpired in that case. It is with those words that I indicate my support for this bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:37): I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill. The background of why this law is being introduced is a tragic story. As we know, Ms Synamin Bell was horrifically killed by her partner on 12 March 2022 while he was high on hallucinogenic drugs. The grief and shock of her family, friends and the community of Millicent were compounded when her killer was able to plead to a lesser charge of manslaughter on the basis that he had acted in excessive self-defence due to a drug-induced delusion.

I remember reading the news of this awful case and I, like so many others in the community, was shocked and dismayed that although Synamin's killer had been charged with murder he was able to use a loophole to downgrade the charge to manslaughter, even though it was his own illicit drug use that caused the hallucinations that he claimed forced him to act in self-defence. The public outcry that followed the trial and the strong advocacy of Synamin Bell's family have brought us to this point today to consider a bill which will close that loophole.

Currently in South Australia, there is a partial defence of 'excessive self-defence' when the defendant has proved that they genuinely believed they acted in self-defence but did not act in reasonable proportion, using excessive force. This partial defence reduces a murder charge to manslaughter, which implies a different level of criminal responsibility and has a much lighter sentence. The bill would outlaw the defence of 'excessive force' used in self-defence in instances when the genuine belief that a person had to defend themselves was impacted by voluntarily taking a drug that substantially impaired mental functioning.

It is clear from the community outpouring following Synamin Bell's death and from the community consultation undertaken on the draft bill that someone who has voluntarily taken illicit drugs should not have access to the same defence as someone who is sober. I understand that the partial defence is used very infrequently and that intoxication very rarely factors into the equation; however, I am encouraged to see that the government has taken this issue seriously to ensure that it cannot be used in the future to allow drugged-up killers to get away with a lighter sentence.

I note that the bill defines a 'drug' as alcohol or any other substance that is capable of influencing mental functioning, and it specifies that the consumption is deemed to be non-therapeutic if it was not prescribed and/or consumed according to a medical practitioner or manufacturer's instructions. This means that if someone were to have an unexpected reaction to a prescribed medication they had taken correctly, they would not be excluded from this defence.

Further, it is important to note that this bill provides some guidance on the application of these new provisions, to ensure that the court can take into account other factors, such as evidence of family violence, when determining if the defendant's belief was genuine or was substantially affected by the consumption of a drug. Likewise, if the defendant's actions were considered reasonable for a sober person, the complete defence of self-defence would still be available, even if they were intoxicated at the time of the offence.

While it is anticipated and hoped that this law will rarely be called upon, I am pleased that it is being updated to reflect community sentiment and expectations of family members who have been impacted by the loss of their loved ones. No-one should be able to argue that they acted in self-defence when they had deliberately consumed illicit mind-altering drugs and then killed someone in psychosis. I am pleased to see the loophole is being closed. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:42): I rise briefly to speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill. This bill is designed to exclude the availability of excessive self-defence from those who commit an act of murder while under the drug-induced delusion that such conduct was necessary to defend themselves.

It comes in response to the horrific killing of Ms Synamin Bell by her partner, who was originally charged with murder but later pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter on the basis that he was experiencing a drug-induced psychosis and claimed to have genuinely believed that his life was under threat and that he was acting in self-defence.

According to law, a person cannot be found guilty of murder if they genuinely believe their conduct was necessary and reasonable and proportionate to the threat they believed to exist. Consequently, this partial defence was open to Ms Bell's killer and he was ultimately sentenced for manslaughter and not murder, even though his paranoid delusion that led to the killing of Ms Bell was caused by self-induced intoxication.

Ms Bell's family, friends and community were justifiably outraged at the final sentencing, which reflected a conviction for manslaughter and not murder. It is hoped that this amendment will provide some satisfaction for the community, knowing that any future offender who voluntarily consumes a non-therapeutic drug will not be able to rely on this self-defence to receive a reduced sentence for their violent acts.

I also note that this proposal does not prevent the operation of section 15B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which addresses offences committed in circumstances of family violence. This allows for evidence of family violence to be considered in determining whether this background of violence has substantially informed or affected the belief that a violent response was a necessary and reasonable defence under the circumstances. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (15:44): I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill, also known as Synamin's law. As the Attorney-General told the chamber in his second reading explanation, Synamin Bell was killed on 12 March 2022 by her partner. Her death was shocking and horrifying and left three young children without their mother.

Although initially charged with Synamin's murder, her partner had his plea downgraded to manslaughter. He relied on an argument of excessive self-defence to do so. In matters where there is a charge of 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 that existed. If they can satisfy the test for this defence, they will be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

Synamin's partner had consumed psychoactive drugs on the night that he killed her. According to his case, he was experiencing a full-blown paranoia psychosis that led him to believe that Synamin intended to kill him. Synamin's sister, Shenta, spoke to the media outside the courtroom during sentencing submissions, and she said, and I quote, 'She wasn't acknowledged as a person, what happened to her, it was all the drugs.'

The result of this case, while legally sound, was totally out of step with community expectation, and if you read details of the case, it is not hard to see why. That someone can rely on their self-induced intoxication to reduce their murder charge to manslaughter does not fit many people's understanding of justice. Synamin's law will provide that excessive self-defence is unavailable if a defendant's genuine belief of threat was 'substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug'.

We note there was concern raised about the possible negative effects of removing the partial defence of excessive self-defence for people who kill their abusive partner in order to protect themselves. In these cases, even if the defendant is intoxicated, it is possible that their genuine belief in the threat to them is informed not by intoxication but by a history of violence and abuse. The bill contains a note which will help guide the application of the new provision.

As the Attorney-General said in his second reading explanation, 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 family violence in determining whether the defendant's belief was genuine or substantially affected by intoxication.

The pain of losing a loved one stays with you forever. I want to thank Synamin's family, her sister, Shenta, and her friends for speaking out and seeking this amendment to the law to ensure that what happened in this court case does not happen again. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (15:47): I rise briefly in support of this bill and thank the government for bringing it to this place. To be in the courtroom when the sentencing was handed down and to hear the distress and the anguish in the voices of Synamin Bell's family and friends was heartbreaking. It quite simply just should not have happened in the first place, but for her family then to have to go through that pain again of seeing Mr Cody Edwards receive such a reduced sentence after taking the life of a young mum in Synamin is a terrible thing. I am glad that this change to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act will hopefully in the future prevent other families from having such pain. I am glad that it has come to this place and that it will be law in this state.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:48): I thank members who have contributed on this important bill and recognise the good that this bill will do. Of course, nothing can bring back Synamin Bell, who was tragically killed, but we can make it better for the future.

I particularly want to echo what a number of members have said and pay tribute to Synamin Bell's friends and families who have advocated for this change. I have mentioned before, but it is a rare privilege that, as Attorney-General, I get to meet some incredible people, particularly in the area of law change, people who have gone through horrific situations that change the rest of their lives and then advocate, for no benefit to themselves, so that other families do not have to go through what they have gone through.

Having spoken to members of Synamin Bell's family, I wish to place on record my tribute to what they are doing now, again with no benefit to themselves but to lessen the pain for other families in the future. With that, I look forward to the committee stage, hopefully this bill passing the lower house as soon as possible, and to have Synamin's law come into effect.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: My first question to the Attorney is: the original bill, as we have heard, was subject to the YourSAy consultation period. I note also there were a number of commentators in relation to this bill. The Law Society made a submission in October of last year. Can the Attorney outline the differences between this bill and the original exposure draft bill, and how many of those changes were taken into account that were raised by the Law Society?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question and, yes, it is the case that when legislation goes out for consultation there are occasionally things that we did not foresee and often legislation is better for the input that we get. I am advised that there are three main areas as a result of the consultation in which there are changes in relation to the legislation that is now before us.

Firstly, the exclusion of the availability of self-defence for defence of property as well as a person. The bill that was consulted on excluded the availability of excessive self-defence to the defence of a person only. It has been amended to exclude the availability of excessive self-defence for both defence of persons and property to show there is a consistent application of the partial defence.

In relation to the clarification of circumstances where there is domestic violence, something that I have mentioned here is that one thing we did not want is an unintended consequence for someone who has particularly been a long-term victim survivor of domestic or family violence, in that this bill might inadvertently affect the defences they have under the law. Section 15B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act provides that a defendant's genuine belief that their conduct was necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose is to be determined having regard to admitted evidence of family violence.

The bill contains a note that clarifies 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 which may have substantially informed the defendant's belief, such as where there is evidence of family or domestic violence. This provides some guidance in the application of the new provision and confirms that it does not prevent the operation of section 15B where a person has killed against a background of family violence, addressing stakeholders' concerns that the bill could criminalise domestic or family violence victims who kill their abusive partner in order to protect themselves.

Finally, the other main area of change was changing the test for when excessive self-defence is unavailable. The consultation bill provided that excessive self-defence was unavailable if a defendant's genuine belief was substantially affected by self-induced intoxication. However, stakeholders raised concerns about possible unjust outcomes for people with mental health illnesses who consume recreational drugs together with their therapeutic medication, given that self-induced intoxication includes where intoxication was a result of the therapeutic consumption of the drug and the recreational use of the same drug, even though the intoxication is in part attributed to therapeutic consumption.

The reference to voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug instead makes plain that it is only the non-therapeutic consumption that might operate to preclude the availability of the partial defence. For example, where the defendant has consumed recreational drugs together with their prescribed medication, assuming the prescribed medication was consumed in accordance with the medical practitioner's instructions.

In determining whether a defendant's genuine belief was substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of the drug, only the effect of the non-therapeutic—that is, recreational drug—on the defendant's genuine belief will be taken into account.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Further to that answer that the Attorney has provided, the committee also made some comment about the term 'affected by' and the potential for legal complexities in relation to that. How do we intend to deal with those complexities under this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the term 'affected by' will be a matter for the court to take into account, from the facts presented to the court, to decide on the evidence that is presented to the court. One of the reasons the language is used in the way it is used is to be consistent within our legislation. Section 15C—Requirement of reasonable proportionality not to apply in case of an innocent defence against home invasion, uses the same language. It is for the court to determine, based on the facts as presented, and also for consistency where we have used similar provisions in other parts of the same piece of legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I note that in this instance, respectfully, aside from the very tragic circumstances around Ms Bell's killing, that public outcry was magnified, if you like, as a result of the fact that the sentence that the perpetrator ultimately received was less than what was anticipated. For the sake of clarity and for the record, can the Attorney confirm that the maximum penalty for manslaughter is indeed the same as for murder, life imprisonment, and that the only difference between the two is the mandatory 20-year non-parole period that applies?

I think that is an important matter for the community's sake so that we understand the sentence is still the same, it is the mandatory component of that sentence that may differ, but we are not touching the sentencing in relation to manslaughter or murder or those non-parole periods.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, that is correct. We are not touching the sentences for those two, but what we are doing is making sure that the availability for a defence—in effect, as we have traversed before—that makes it easy to plead to one rather than the other is curtailed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney also touch on the concerns that were raised with respect to the meaning of intoxication, as raised by the Law Society?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I think the answer is, I am advised, very similar to the answer about the meaning of 'affected by': it will be up to the court to decide on intoxication. That is not defined in the bill. That is up for a court to determine on the facts presented to it and, again, it is in keeping with the language that is used in other sections of the very same act, particularly in section 15C.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear when we talk about intoxication for the purposes of this bill and the current legislation we are talking about a drug or alcohol or any other substance—whether it is used alone or in combination with another substance—is capable of influencing one's mental functioning. That remains the same?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can confirm to the honourable member that that is correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney outline what, if any, issues were raised with respect to the issue of comorbidity? That is where somebody is taking—for want of a better term—recreational drugs and medication at the same time, and the impact and the effects that that can have, both with respect to the defence and the meaning of intoxication.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I touched on this previously, but the reference is to voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug, and that was one of the changes to make it plain that it is only the non-therapeutic consumption that might operate to preclude the availability of the partial self-defence. When a defendant consumed non-therapeutic illegal or recreational illegal drugs together with their prescribed medication, if the prescribed medication was taken in accordance with the medical practitioner's instructions, then in determining whether the defendant's genuine belief was substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a drug, only the effects of those illegal recreational drugs on the defendant's general belief will be taken into account, not the effects of the therapeutic drug that is taken in accordance with the medical practitioner's instructions.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am glad the Attorney took me back to that first point because at the outset I asked about 'affected by'. Would these be matters that the court would have to take into consideration? Of course, you may be prescribed some drugs that do actually have an effect on your mental functioning, and they can be magnified by those illicit substances. In those instances, it is rather complex. Will that be for the court to determine how or whether indeed an individual's legal drug-taking can be separated from any illegal drug-taking?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that that is correct. It is a matter for the court and the court, based on all the evidence presented, will have to determine whether the taking of that non-therapeutic drug substantially affected the defendant's belief.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney, as a matter of the record, outline generally whether any other concerns were raised throughout that YourSAy consultation phase and summarise those for the purposes of the committee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that many of the responses to the YourSAy website and most of the general members of the public's contributions were very supportive of the legislation. Particularly from legal stakeholders, most of the concerns raised were along the lines of what the Law Society has set out and in particular the matters that I have addressed before: how to define 'substantially affected by', and also the concern that we have just traversed about the interaction of polysubstance use—the illegal and the non-legal application. So a lot of it was very much in line from legal stakeholders with what was raised by the Law Society.

I am also advised, and it was mentioned earlier in the committee, regarding some of the issues to do with making sure we did not inadvertently cut off avenues of the defence for victim survivors of family domestic violence, which is why the note is part of this, it was not on the original bill, to make that abundantly clear.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney also advise whether there were any specific concerns raised by those who did respond? It goes to the question of intoxication, again, and the 'affected by', and that previous line of questioning, but where there are underlying mental health issues that are indeed potentially responsible for influencing a belief or a reaction from a person and how they will be dealt with in this context.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that in the circumstances where there are multiple things that might be at play—issues to do with mental health as well as substance use that may have affected the defendant's belief—that is the reason the 'substantially affected by' language is used. So it can be a matter, from the evidence presented to the court, for the court to give weighting to the relevant factors and to decide if that non-therapeutic use of the drugs substantially affected the defendant's belief.

It will be a matter of fact for the court to weigh up the various factors that contributed to the defendant's state of mind and whether that non-therapeutic use of drugs substantially affected the genuine belief of the defendant.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That goes to my next question for the Attorney, which comes with respect to the notes that have been included in both provisions. Could we place on the record the purpose of those notes when it comes to both provisions in relation to self-defence and then defence of property?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the notes are intended to make sure that where there are multiple factors, the court needs to take those into account. Particularly, as I said, that was in response to stakeholder feedback to make sure that we were not cutting off that avenue for people, particularly women who have been long-term victims of family or domestic violence. This does not inadvertently affect their ability to have their experiences raised in a defence in particular cases where a woman has been a victim for decades and decades and then takes action that results in the death of the perpetrator. That still can and should be taken into account.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will just go back, and I apologise for going back and forth. We touched earlier on the definition that will apply to drugs and then non-therapeutic drugs. Can the Attorney just also confirm, as a matter of clarification: if there is a therapeutic drug that is being used in the absence of a prescription for an individual, how will that be deemed? If I get my hands on a box of something, and I use those, how will they be treated with respect to whether they are a therapeutic drug, non-therapeutic drug, illicit drug and so forth?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a good question because you can, of course, have prescription drugs that are prescribed but are either not taken in accordance with the prescription or taken by someone to whom they were not prescribed. In the legislation, the term 'non-therapeutic' is defined. The non-therapeutic 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.

So if you are taking drugs for purposes other than how it was designed to be prescribed or you are taking prescription drugs that are not your drugs, then you will likely fall foul of being able to claim that it was for therapeutic use, because it needs to be consumed in accordance with the directions of a medical practitioner.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: By extension that would also cover ensuring that drugs are consumed as recommended by either a medical practitioner or, indeed, the manufacturer of those drugs. If they are used outside of those scopes then that is where they will come into effect as a drug other than for therapeutic purposes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. I can give some further advice in relation to that. It goes on to where the definitions talk about non-therapeutic, and the drug is considered to be non-therapeutic unless, as I said, the drug is prescribed by and consumed in accordance with the directions of a medical practitioner or it is a drug of a kind available without prescription from a registered pharmacist and it is consumed for the purposes recommended by the manufacturer in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

As the honourable member has outlined, there may be drugs over the counter essentially that you can get without a prescription, but you need to consume them in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions if you want to claim that they are essentially therapeutic.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Finally, can the minister clarify what the timeframe for implementation is likely to be with respect to this bill? I note that it will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation. What do we need to do before we fix that date? Are there any regulations that are still the subject of consultation, and when do we anticipate that these new laws will come into effect?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is a good question. There are some laws in the criminal law field that we pass that do require a significant lead-in time. Law enforcement has to be educated, courts have to have processes or procedures in place, and even forms for new ways of charging things. Laws that are currently before this chamber in relation to coercive control are examples of those where advocates in the sector advocate for a long lead-in time, I think up to a couple of years, to make sure that not just those who have to administer the laws have everything needed to be in place but also for an education program to be run.

We sometimes also see with work health and safety laws—where there are criminal offences—a reasonably long lead-in time to make sure people can have that education part. However, my advice is that these laws are intended to come in reasonably quickly. It does not create a new offence, it just varies how this defence works.

I can advise that it is the government's intention that once these laws pass—and if everything goes as smoothly as it can they may even pass the lower house before the winter break—that they come into place as soon as possible.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney explain whether this legislation is based on examples from any other interstate jurisdictions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to this particular law, we did look at how other states' laws of self-defence operate, and I think I can summarise it easily by saying that it varies wildly. We have not taken this from another state because the way these laws operate are very different across different jurisdictions. There is probably nothing exactly comparable.

What we were able to do, though, as I mentioned in relation to another part that was asked, is look to the laws to do with excessive force for home invasion and how they operate, and use some of that language. We were able to look at how legislation is written in other parts of this act, but in terms of other states there was nothing that was directly comparable.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think the Attorney has answered my next question in terms of whether there were any examples of similar legislation in other states successfully dismissing the self-defence claim in cases similar to the case of Mr Cody Edwards.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the use of excessive force as part of self-defence is very different in different states. We did have a look to see whether there was something directly comparable, but we relied on the language used in other parts of this legislation rather than anything in another jurisdiction because of those differences.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just noting the Law Society's submission and their obviously careful concern that this amendment bill was a reaction to, in their words, 'a highly publicised case', while the case against Mr Edwards was, as we are all aware, very understandably shocking for the community of Millicent—and I think to South Australia more broadly—does the Attorney have any figures or estimates on how often this type of defence currently gets utilised by defendants?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can remember that we looked at this at the time and, asserting the partial defence where intoxication was involved, we could not find another example of that being used. I take on board what the honourable member has said. You can easily understand the disappointment of family and friends, particularly, but also the community in a case where someone was killed in such tragic circumstances and the law was applied as parliaments in the past had written the law. However, I do not think the outcome, through no fault of the judges applying the law, met community expectations.

A kneejerk reaction to one case does not always provide the best solutions, but sometimes one case does highlight a gap that we had not potentially considered. As I say, in looking, officers from the Attorney-General's Department could not find another case where intoxication was a factor in these sorts of circumstances, so it was something that we had not turned our mind to because we were not aware of a case where it has happened before.

But because this one case highlighted it, that does not mean it is not a good idea to change the law. In this case, and from the comments that have been made by members here, I think we are all in pretty fierce agreement that this one case, unlike any other that we had seen before, highlighted a gap that needed changing.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (16:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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