Battered woman syndrome testimony in Canada: its development and lingering issues.

Abstract

This article examines the status of battered woman syndrome (BWS) testimony in Canadian courts and assesses the impact of the leading decision, Regina (R.) v. Lavallee. Acknowledging the test of reasonableness in criminal trials was constructed on a male model, the Supreme Court in Lavallee corrected the gendered interpretation of women in abusive relationships by admitting the BWS evidence. Feminist legal scholars questioned whether Lavallee had succeeded in dispelling the stereotypes around battered women. These concerns were partially addressed in R. v. Malott, but some tough issues remain: applying the reasonableness test to women of color and the narrow base of BWS evidence. Some directions are discussed: discarding BWS testimony, framing a redefined and expanded BWS testimony, introducing a new defense based on self-preservation, and adopting an alternative interpretative frame such as "coercive control." The strengthening of BWS testimony would call for the judges' referencing of latest empirical research on battered women.