Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences - Intoxication) Amendment Bill

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:37): 

I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Defences—Intoxication) Amendment Bill. The background of why this law is being introduced is a tragic story. As we know, Ms Synamin Bell was horrifically killed by her partner on 12 March 2022 while he was high on hallucinogenic drugs. The grief and shock of her family, friends and the community of Millicent were compounded when her killer was able to plead to a lesser charge of manslaughter on the basis that he had acted in excessive self-defence due to a drug-induced delusion.

I remember reading the news of this awful case and I, like so many others in the community, was shocked and dismayed that although Synamin's killer had been charged with murder he was able to use a loophole to downgrade the charge to manslaughter, even though it was his own illicit drug use that caused the hallucinations that he claimed forced him to act in self-defence. The public outcry that followed the trial and the strong advocacy of Synamin Bell's family have brought us to this point today to consider a bill which will close that loophole.

Currently in South Australia, there is a partial defence of 'excessive self-defence' when the defendant has proved that they genuinely believed they acted in self-defence but did not act in reasonable proportion, using excessive force. This partial defence reduces a murder charge to manslaughter, which implies a different level of criminal responsibility and has a much lighter sentence. The bill would outlaw the defence of 'excessive force' used in self-defence in instances when the genuine belief that a person had to defend themselves was impacted by voluntarily taking a drug that substantially impaired mental functioning.

It is clear from the community outpouring following Synamin Bell's death and from the community consultation undertaken on the draft bill that someone who has voluntarily taken illicit drugs should not have access to the same defence as someone who is sober. I understand that the partial defence is used very infrequently and that intoxication very rarely factors into the equation; however, I am encouraged to see that the government has taken this issue seriously to ensure that it cannot be used in the future to allow drugged-up killers to get away with a lighter sentence.

I note that the bill defines a 'drug' as alcohol or any other substance that is capable of influencing mental functioning, and it specifies that the consumption is deemed to be non-therapeutic if it was not prescribed and/or consumed according to a medical practitioner or manufacturer's instructions. This means that if someone were to have an unexpected reaction to a prescribed medication they had taken correctly, they would not be excluded from this defence.

Further, it is important to note that this bill provides some guidance on the application of these new provisions, to ensure that the court can take into account other factors, such as evidence of family violence, when determining if the defendant's belief was genuine or was substantially affected by the consumption of a drug. Likewise, if the defendant's actions were considered reasonable for a sober person, the complete defence of self-defence would still be available, even if they were intoxicated at the time of the offence.

While it is anticipated and hoped that this law will rarely be called upon, I am pleased that it is being updated to reflect community sentiment and expectations of family members who have been impacted by the loss of their loved ones. No-one should be able to argue that they acted in self-defence when they had deliberately consumed illicit mind-altering drugs and then killed someone in psychosis. I am pleased to see the loophole is being closed.

I commend the bill to the chamber.