header-logo header-logo

07 August 2008
Issue: 7333 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Homicide reform should not be piecemeal

Legal news

Some proposed homicide law reforms are sensible—but making piecemeal changes is problematic, says Tom Little, Criminal Bar Association secretary.

The reforms, outlines in a government consultation paper—Murder and Manslaughter: Proposals for Reform of the Law, will make it harder for those who kill in anger to avoid a murder conviction by claiming provocation. The new proposals include replacing the existing partial defence of provocation with two new ones: killing in response to a fear of serious violence; and in exceptional circumstances, killing in response to words and conduct which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. The latter would not include a victim’s sexual infidelity. New offences of intentionally assisting and encouraging murder and of murder in the context of a joint criminal venture are also created and infanticide cannot be charged in cases not currently homicide.

Little says: “The proposal for a partial defence when killing in response to a fear of serious violence is sensible and will apply to cases falling short of self-defence. The changes to diminished responsibility and infanticide are also in the main sensible and long overdue. However, the government is reserving its position on whether further changes should follow. It would be more sensible to make any changes in one go so the proposals as a whole could be considered.”

Issue: 7333 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll