Defending Primary Victims Who Face Criminal Charges for the Use of Defensive Force against Their Abusive Partners: Attempting to Change ‘Laws’ Practices’

Abstract

Australian lawyers, scholars and policy makers have grappled for decades with the barriers faced by victim-survivors in successfully raising self-defence in response to criminal charges for the use of force against their abusive partners. In this article we discuss a recent legal innovation developed to address similar barriers in the New Zealand context. The defence in R v Ruddelle was ground-breaking in Australasia in that expert evidence on ‘intimate partner violence entrapment’ was admitted at trial from an expert who was not a psychologist or psychiatrist. The aim was to assist the jury in more accurately understanding the facts for the purposes of determining whether the Indigenous defendant’s defensive force was ‘reasonable’ in self-defence. Similar evidence was provided at sentencing. In this article we assess the gains that were made in taking such an approach at sentencing, as well as the limitations of this strategy at trial in this particular case.