Check for updates Article Did the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 get it right? Are all honour killings revenge killings? Recep Do?an TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Turkey Punishment & Society 15(5) 488-514 The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1462474513504797 pun.sagepub.com SSAGE Abstract The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 substantially reshaped the law on provocation in England and Wales. The Act was prompted by the Government and guided by the Law Commission. It is unfortunate that the Commission and Government dismissed the issue of honour killings so quickly, on the basis of unconvincing research evidence. Honour killing cases were ruled out as potential provocation cases and left outside the scope of the defence of loss of control, by assuming that in honour killing cases the defendant must have acted in a considered desire for revenge. However, the Act is flawed by the assumption that all honour killing cases are revenge killings. In the light of the author's research, this article will argue that there are honour killing cases the circumstances of which deserve to be left to the jury, as the desire for revenge is not the motive at all and the defendant was able to resist the pressure until the final triggering act. Keywords admissible evidence, Coroners and Justice Act 2009, honour killings, loss of control defence, revenge killings Introduction Despite cultural complexities and powerful motivations, the voice of the defendant who has committed honour killing has rarely been heard. Indeed, in the study of honour killings much of the available data is newspaper-based reports of cases and Corresponding author: Recep Do?an, TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Sö?ütözü Caddesi No:43, Sö?ütözü, Ankara, 06560, Turkey. Email: recepdogan06@hotmail.com
Do?an 489 reported incidents (Husseini, 2009; Kressel, 1981; Safilios-Rothschild, 1969; Sliman, 2005). Another source has been personal accounts, from those who are likely victims of honour killing, or who somehow have managed to save themselves from becoming a victim of honour killing, or from those who are close relatives or friends of a victim of an honour killing (Begikhani, 2005: 214-222; Kevorkian, 2003). Some data can also be collected from persons involved in the issue of honour killings in a professional capacity, such as lawyers, local administrators, psychiatrists, police officers, prosecutors and so on (Begikhani, 2005: 211; Jafri, 2008: 49, 50; Kevorkian, 2005). Finally, some data have been collected from court rulings and police records (Begikhani, 2005; Hoyek et al., 2005; Pimentel et al., 2005: 255; Sliman, 2005; Van Eck, 2003). As shown, the voice of the defendant has rarely been heard.1 Their perspectives on the crimes committed have been over- looked and their personal circumstances have never been assessed properly in their full context. By ignoring these accounts, it is perhaps inevitable that a general assumption has been created for such defendants, in which they are assumed to have been content with what they did, and where they are assumed to have acted in a con- sidered desire for revenge. This firm but ill-informed assumption, which regards