Gay rights campaigners welcome end of ‘archaic’ legal provision, which allowed defendants to argue for a reduction to manslaughter, but say they’re surprised it took so long

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

Gay rights campaigners have welcomed Queensland’s move to abolish the so-called “gay panic” defence to murder but say they don’t know why it took so long.

The partial defence to murder had allowed defendants to argue for a reduction to manslaughter by claiming an unwanted homosexual advance provoked violence.

The passage through Queensland parliament on Tuesday night of a bill striking the partial defence from the criminal code leaves South Australia the only state where it remains.

The push to repeal the defence was spearheaded by the Maryborough priest Father Paul Kelly after the fatal 2008 bashing of Wayne Ruks in his church yard, after which the killers raised the defence at trial.

How 'gay panic' defence reform was brought about by a straight man's death Read more

Kelly said he was relieved Queensland had finally ditched the “archaic” legal provision but was surprised it took so long.

“So many people said this was a no-brainer and that it was clearly an archaic law, so I did feel the resistance to it was an ideological one,” he said.

The Queensland attorney general, Yvette D’Ath, said the defence wasn’t specifically in the criminal code but had built up over time in common law through judges rulings.

“Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of human rights and the amendment ... will ensure that this provision operates equally for all members of our community,” D’Ath said.

Queensland law society president, Christine Smyth, said the decision “to remove this antiquated and discriminatory defence from the criminal statutes is a very strong and clear message that the law is in keeping with current community standards and expectations”.

Smyth said the government had also gone some way to addressing the society’s argument that a similar partial defence of provocation should remain open “to a defendant where the victim had sexually assaulted or raped the defendant, or where the victim had sexually abused the defendant as a child”.

She said the bill attempted to cater to those examples by using the term “circumstances of an exceptional character”.

Smyth said while the government had not defined this term, she had “absolute confidence in the courts to administer the legislation effectively”.

The South Australian premier, Jay Weatherill, late last year promised to follow suit by striking the partial defence for homicide from law.



Other states removed unwanted sexual advances as a partial defence a decade ago.