Normativity and the ordinary person formula: Comparing provocation and duress in Australia
University of Western Australia Law Review
2019
- 78Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage78
- Abstract Views78
Article Description
This article revisitsthe formulation of the ‘ordinary person’test, the long-established normativetest in criminal law in Australia. The ‘ordinary person’test,where itapplies, setsan ‘objective’ anduniform standard or legal norm: would (or might)anordinary person have done the illegal act when confronted with similarcircumstances as the accused?Althoughmuch debate has ensued as to whothe ‘ordinary person’ is in Australia, in this article, we explore from a normativeperspective, the possibility of reworking the test toachieve uniformity across twodefences. We argue that although the justification for the defences of provocation and duress differ, constructing a minimum objective standard for the ordinary person test would promote law’s principle valuessuch asfairness, impartiality, and predictability.The purpose of this article is thus to add a further voice lamenting the divergence in approaches to the ordinary person formula and arguing that normativityisgiven priority over other necessary considerations such as equality, human relations, or community protection.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know