A PROVOCATIVE ARGUMENT

Last month on 3AW I looked at a very serious legal and moral issue. It concerned the issue of when murder isn’t murder. When murder apparently becomes manslaughter because a person was supposedly “provoked” into killing his wife or partner or former partner.

It was prompted by the James Ramage case. He was acquitted by a jury of murdering his wife, Julie, on the grounds of provocation. He was convicted of manslaughter after he admitted strangling her. But his lawyer claimed he was provoked when she taunted him about his lack of sexual prowess and how – according to him – she said he repulsed her in bed. He claimed he then “lost it”. And he killed her.

As I said back then --e did not lose it so much that he didn’t know how to briefly cover up the crime after he murdered his estranged wife. He put her body in the boot of his Jaguar. He drove her to a remote area where she used to horse ride. He buried her and incriminating evidence including a piece of rope with the ends sealed. He then calmly had a meeting with a sales person about a new granite top for his kitchen and then had dinner with his son.

Ramage then spent hours with his lawyers plotting a defence and finally turned himself in. At Kew police station a lawyer said “This is James Ramage. James is here to turn himself in for murdering his wife.” Murdering his wife. His own lawyer’s words. And yet the jury was persuaded to downgrade the charge to manslaughter.

What was the significance of the piece of rope? Why did Ramage spend hours after he supposedly “lost it” and strangled his wife setting up an alibi and acting normally? How could he have a quiet dinner with his son before spending three and a half hours with his lawyers?

And remember one of his lawyer’s told Police when he finally, belatedly, turned himself in: “This is James Ramage. James is here to turn himself in for murdering his wife.”

If ever this was a case of getting away with murder this is it.

The issue is back in the news today because the Victorian Law Reform Commission has issued a report calling for changes to our murder laws. They have made more than fifty recommendations including the demand that the partial defence of provocation be abolished.

And they rightly say: “The defence tends to be used by men who kill their partners or ex-partners out of jealousy or anger. The community does not accept this as a reasonable excuse for murder and our law should reflect that sentiment”.

And aint that the truth.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

©Copyright Derryn Hinch 2004