abused women who kill violent men

In 1995 in an important case the Appeal court turned a murder conviction into manslaughter due to provocation.

Woman who stabbed violent partner freed
The Emma Humphreys case: 'Landmark judgment' strengthens defence of provocation for victims of domestic violence driven to kill


..the appeal court ruling which quashed her murder conviction and substituted a verdict of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation.

Lawyers said the judgment strengthened and clarified the defence of provocation on behalf of victims of domestic violence driven to kill. It spelt out for the first time that not only must trial judges detail any history of abuse, they must also analyse and explain its significance to the jury.

Further, it underscored an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that personality traits - such as "battered wives' syndrome" - and any effects on behaviour, should be taken into account when considering provocation.


Woman who stabbed violent partner freed - News - The Independent

Yesterday, another case hit the news:

A woman who had killed a man to protect her friend from attack has been aquittet of murder on the second trial:

She was convicted of murder, but a new legal team obtained fresh evidence from adolescent psychiatrists that was presented to the court of appeal, and this conviction was quashed in November 2014. She had by then served five years of a life sentence with a nine-year tariff.

Stacey Hyde

The second article is mostly concerned why this woman should stand a second trial, but my question is:

Is it ok that a proven history of violence means a murder charge gets reduced to manslaughter?
Should the woman (if a woman) not have left instead?
Would it be more fair if the accused were totally acquitted?

In the first case the woman had slit her wrists to try to avoid a gang bang by her man and her friends, and she plunged the knife in his heart instead when she did not succeed. Is this murder - manslaughter - self defence??

In the second case the man was killed during a fight: "When the police arrived Hyde was very distressed, sobbing and saying, “He tried to kill me … I had to help Holly … he was going to kill her … I thought he would kill me …” Hyde was found to have injuries, some of which were consistent with previous self-harm, and some of which were consistent with a forceful struggle with Francis."


In both cases the women were initially convicted or murder, later on appeal turned to manslaughter.

What would be right??

In my opinion, these were clearly cases of provocation. Both women should be acquitted. Murder is ridiculous and I don't see a case for manslaughter either. Any halfway competent lawyer should be able to quash a conviction.

I have to agree. I just can't understand why judges and lawyers love to try abuse victims who are defending themselves. If they had been attacked by a stranger in an alley, what's the likelihood that they would even be arrested, much less charged with a felony? How does knowing their attacker make it any less of a case of self defense? These kinds of things make it understandable why so many abused women are afraid to take legal action against their abusers.

It is encouraging, though, that the appeals process has worked, and these women have been released. Hopefully this will set a precedent, and force lawyers and judges to look more closely at the real victims in these cases.

I have to agree with you both. In both cases it was reduced to manslaughter but it should have been self defense. The law seems clear enough.