Inertia, Uncertainty, and Canadian Homicide Law: An Introduction to the Special Issue
![handle is hein.journals/alblr47 and id is 649 raw text is: INERTIA, UNCERTAINTY, AND CANADIAN HOMICIDE LAW
INERTIA, UNCERTAINTY, AND CANADIAN HOMICIDE LAW:
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE
SANJEEV ANAND* AND KENT ROACH**
SPECIAL ISSUE COORDINATORS
Ten years ago, a collection of essays written by six leading criminal law scholars from
England and Wales was published in a single volume and its editors had lofty aspirations for
the book. Entitled Rethinking English Homicide Law,' the manuscript proposed, discussed,
and evaluated possible reforms to the English law of homicide. The editors candidly admitted
that their aim in publishing the book was to ignite debate on some of the key issues in the law
of homicide with the hope that legislative action might ultimately result.2
However, the editors were also cognizant that legislative reform would be unlikely to
come about purely from the work of academic criminal lawyers.3 Optimally, if the
publication of the volume coincided closely in time with high-profile events that resulted in
public pressure for legislative change, Parliament may be moved to act and the outcome
might be legislative enactments that incorporated many of the reform proposals outlined in
Rethinking English Homicide Law.
This turn of events is exactly what transpired. As a result of a number of cases, including
the killing of an aspiring model by her boyfriend who then successfully raised the defence
of provocation, the government eventually ordered the Law Commission to examine the
English law ofhomicide.4 In its report published in 2006,' the Law Commission cites directly
from Rethinking English Homicide Law as well as from commissioned research by many of
the scholars who contributed to Rethinking English Homicide Law. The proposals for
legislative reform contained within the Law Commission report called for, among other
things, small but important changes to the law of partial defences to murder and massive
structural changes to the murder offence itself, including the division of murder into first
degree murder with a mandatory life penalty and second degree murder with a discretionary
life maximum penalty.6
Although the government did follow through with legislation in line with many ofthe Law
Commission's recommendations, it did not enact the major structural changes to the law of
homicide urged by the Law Commission. Predictably, the government balked at the proposal
Professor of Law, University of Alberta.
Professor of Law, University of Toronto.
Andrew Ashworth & Barry Mitchell, eds., Rethinking English Homicide Law (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000).
2 Andrew Ashworth & Barry Mitchell, Introduction in Ashworth & Mitchell, ibid, I at 1-2
[Introduction].
3 Ibid. at 2.
4 Jenny Watson, Killing Puts Law in Dock Liverpool Echo (31 October 2003), online: Liverpool Echo
<http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2003/10/3 1/killing-puts-law-in-dock-
100252-13576698/>.
5 U.K.. The Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter andInfanticide (Project 6 ofthe Ninth Programme
of Law Reform: Homicide, Law Com No 304) (London: The Stationery Office, 2006).
6 Ibid. at 172-76. At present, the offence of murder in England and Wales is one crime with one sentence
and it is not divided into more and less grave versions or degrees. Murder carries a mandatory minimum
punishment of life imprisonment and a person is liable for murder by causing a person's death either
with the intent to kill or with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/alblr47&div=28&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Inertia, Uncertainty, and Canadian Homicide Law: An Introduction to the Special Issue
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most