‘Unrestrained Killings’ refers to the two partial defences to murder of provocation and excessive self-defence, which are the subjects of this study. Unrestrained Killings and the Law examines two instances of unrestrained killings which the law has occasion to recognize as falling short of murder. By conducting a comparative analysis of the laws pertaining to these defences in India, England and Australia, the study reveals the strengths and weaknesses of these laws. While both the Indian and Australian laws of provocation have originated from the English common law, they represent improvements of that law in many different ways. This is evident when several requirements of the defence are singled out, as this work does, for critical examination and comparison. With regard to excessive self-defence, English common law has refused to recognize it as a partial defence to murder. In contrast, the Indian law has recognized the defence ever since the inception of the Indian Penal Code. The defence took root for a brief period under Australian common law but has since been abolished. Stanley Yeo proposes model provisions of provocation and excessive self-defence which incorporate the best features of the laws in each of the three jurisdictions studied.
There are no reviews yet.