Editing Gay panic defense (section)

===Australia===
In Australia, it is known as the "homosexual advance defence" (HAD).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/justicepolicy/Documents/homosexualadvancedefence1998.doc |title=Homosexual Advance Defence: Final Report of the Working Party |date=September 1998 |access-date=June 1, 2019 |format=DOC |archive-date=April 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200415134805/https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/justicepolicy/Documents/homosexualadvancedefence1998.doc |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |newspaper=[[The Australian]] |date=October 23, 1995 |title=Gay rally puts 'panic defence' on trial |first=Amanda |last=Meade}}</ref> Of the status of the HAD in Australia, Kent Blore wrote in 2012:<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal |title=The Homosexual Advance Defence and the Campaign to Abolish it in Queensland: The Activist's Dilemma and the Politician's Paradox |first=Kent |last=Blore |journal=QUT Law & Justice Journal |volume=12 |number=2 |year=2012 |doi=10.5204/qutlr.v12i2.489 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

{{Quote|Although the homosexual advance defence cannot be found anywhere in legislation, its entrenchment in case law gives it the force of law. ... Several Australian states and territories have either abolished the umbrella defence of provocation entirely or excluded non-violent homosexual advances from its ambit. Of those that have abolished provocation entirely, Tasmania was the first to do so in 2003.}}

In Australia, as of 2023, all [[Australian states]] have either abolished the provocation defense altogether ([[Tasmania]] in 2003, [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]] in 2005, [[Western Australia]] in 2008 and [[South Australia]] in 2020), or have restricted its application. [[Queensland]] restricted the defense of provocation in 2011, and further restricted it in 2017 (with a clause to allow it in 'exceptional circumstances' to be determined by a magistrate).<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/gay-panic-laws-pass-queensland-parliament-removing-partial-defence-20170321-gv32j8.html |title=Gay panic laws pass Queensland Parliament, removing partial defence |last=Caldwell |first=Felicity |work=Brisbane Times |date=March 21, 2017 |access-date=March 21, 2017 |archive-date=March 1, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200301164245/https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/gay-panic-laws-pass-queensland-parliament-removing-partial-defence-20170321-gv32j8.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In a differing approach, [[New South Wales]], the [[Australian Capital Territory|ACT]] and [[Northern Territory]] have implemented changes to stipulate that non-violent sexual advances (of any kind, including homosexual) are not a valid defense.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> In New South Wales, the law on provocation was amended to provide that the provocative conduct of the deceased must also have constituted a serious indictable offense.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s23.html|title=Crimes Act 1900 – Sect 23 Trial for murder—partial defence of extreme provocation}}</ref>

Garry Wait, a 20-year-old waiter, mounted an unsuccessful gay panic defence after being charged with the murder of 63-year-old former federal MP [[Bill Arthur]] in 1982. Wait pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter, on the grounds that Arthur had made "homosexual advances". The jury rejected his account of the killing, convicting him of murder. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/116450682|title=Life sentence over death of ex-MP|newspaper=The Canberra Times|date=9 March 1982}}</ref>

[[South Australia]] was the first Australian jurisdiction to legalize consensual homosexual acts in 1975; however, {{As of|April 2017|lc=y}} it was the only Australian jurisdiction not to have repealed or overhauled the gay panic defense.<ref name="SALRI Report">{{cite web |title=The Provoking Operation of Provocation: Stage 1 |url=https://law.adelaide.edu.au/system/files/media/documents/2019-01/provocation_stage_1_report.pdf |publisher=South Australian Law Reform Institute |access-date=June 1, 2019 |date=April 2017 |archive-date=March 6, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306200028/https://law.adelaide.edu.au/system/files/media/documents/2019-01/provocation_stage_1_report.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2015, the South Australian state government was awaiting<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.timebase.com.au/news/2017/AT04291-article.html |title=Overview of Homosexual Advance Defence Laws Across Australia: South Australia Still to Enact Change |date=July 5, 2017 |work=Time Base |access-date=June 1, 2019 |archive-date=March 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200320014753/https://www.timebase.com.au/news/2017/AT04291-article.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-22/sa-becomes-last-state-to-allow-gay-panic-defence/8376948.html |title=South Australia Becomes Last State to Allow Gay Panic Defence for Murder |last=Jones |first=Ruby |date=March 22, 2017 |work=ABC News |access-date=June 1, 2019 |archive-date=March 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200320014754/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-22/sa-becomes-last-state-to-allow-gay-panic-defence/8376948.html |url-status=live }}</ref> the report from the [[South Australian Law Reform Institute]] and the outcome of the appeal to the High Court from the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. In 2011, Andrew Negre was killed by Michael Lindsay bashing and stabbing him. Lindsay's principal defense was that he stabbed Negre in the chest and abdomen but Negre's death was the result of someone else slitting Negre's throat. The secondary defense was that Lindsay's action in stabbing Negre was because he had lost self-control after Negre made sexual advances towards him and offered to pay Lindsay for sex. The jury convicted Lindsay of murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 23-year non-parole period. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the directions to the jury on the gay panic defense were flawed, but that every reasonable jury would have found that an ordinary person would not have lost self-control and acted in the way Lindsay did.<ref>{{cite AustLII|SASCFC|56|2014|litigants=R v Lindsay |date=June 3, 2014 |courtname=[[Supreme Court of South Australia|Court of Criminal Appeal]] (SA, Australia)}}</ref> The High Court held that a properly instructed jury might have found that an offer of money for sex made by a Caucasian man to an Aboriginal man in the latter's home and in the presence of his wife and family may have had a pungency that an unwelcome sexual advance made by one man toward another in other circumstances would not have.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|17|2015|litigants=Lindsay v the Queen}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2015/hca-16-2015-05-06.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150921091316/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2015/hca-16-2015-05-06.pdf |archive-date=2015-09-21 |url-status=live |title=Lindsay v the Queen |publisher=[[High Court of Australia]] |date=May 6, 2015 |access-date=June 1, 2019}}</ref> Lindsay was re-tried and was again convicted of murder. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction,<ref>{{cite AustLII|SASCFC|129|2016|litigants=R v Lindsay |date=December 8, 2016 |courtname=[[Supreme Court of South Australia|Court of Criminal Appeal]] (SA, Australia)}}</ref> and an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was dismissed.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCATrans|131|2017|litigants=Lindsay v The Queen |date=June 16, 2017 |courtname=auto}}</ref> In April 2017, the South Australian Law Reform Institute recommended that the law of provocation be reformed to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender, but that the removal of a non-violent sexual advance as a partial defence to murder be deferred until stage 2 of the report was produced.<ref name="SALRI Report" /> Finally, in 2020, South Australia abolished the defense of provocation altogether.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://johnstonwithers.com.au/news/south-australia-abolishes-the-defence-of-provocation|title=South Australia abolishes the defence of provocation|first=Johnston|last=Withers|website=Johnston Withers|access-date=2023-05-03|archive-date=2023-05-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230503190842/https://johnstonwithers.com.au/news/south-australia-abolishes-the-defence-of-provocation|url-status=live}}</ref>