Mr. Chairman, I'm caught up in this debate here, because we are talking about a particular type of concern in the criminal law that has been rather excruciating for courts and juries to deal with.
On the battered wife syndrome, yes, Mr. Seeback's right in saying that's a factor that's taken into account, but when we look at all of the factors as set out there, including “the nature, duration and history of the relationship”, and the concern that Mr. Seeback just pointed out.... There's also proposed paragraph 34(2)(g) on “the nature and proportionality of the...response”. We're back, then, to “Why didn't you just leave?” as the answer to what we're talking about here. That, I am convinced, will now be the new approach if someone is attacking a person's perception.
The reality is that we have these types of incidents because, in the perception of the circumstances of the individual who's subjected to constant and ongoing abuse over a long period of time and to the threats that were there, the perception of the person involved is key. It's key, and I think we need to ensure that it's there. I don't know if it's there.
Obviously the reasonable grounds are that force is being used against them or there's a threat. Yes, fine, there's a threat, and the act constitutes the purpose of defending oneself. That's not a problem, but then whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances is a purely objective test. It's purely objective.
Then they're saying, “Why didn't you leave?” Well, where do we get the defence? Where do we get any other defence, unless the perception of the individual involved is going to be key? I'm very concerned that if we don't pass this amendment, we'll be doing great damage to that particular type of offence.