The Not So Ordinary, Reasonable person or the man From Clapham Just Got Off the Bus

Townsley, L; Dobinson, IR

The Not So Ordinary, Reasonable person or the man From Clapham Just Got Off the Bus

Townsley, L

Dobinson, IR

Permalink

Publisher:: Australasian Law Teachers Association
Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Australasian Law Teachers Association : Law and Public Policy: Taming the Unruly Horse?, 2007, pp. 1 - 25
Issue Date:: 2007-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (192.07 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Townsley, L https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-4055	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Dobinson, IR https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8124-2161	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Adams, M	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Barker, D	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Poludniewski, K	en_US
dc.date	2007-09-23	en_US
dc.date.issued	2007-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Australasian Law Teachers Association : Law and Public Policy: Taming the Unruly Horse?, 2007, pp. 1 - 25	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/7737
dc.description.abstract	In Crime, Reason and History Alan Norrie argues that criminal law is neither rational nor principled, so that the extraordinary is as much the norm as the ordinary. 1 In a subsequent article, Norrie seeks to use the objective test in provocation to demonstrate his point. As Norrie states,2 this has led, in England, to the apparent but somewhat irrational recognition in law of a reasonable glue sniffer ,3 reasonable immature person 4 and a reasonable obsessive .5 It is possible to add others such as the reasonable battered woman 6 and reasonable depressive .7 In referring to the Australian High Court case of Stingel v R,8 Norrie further suggests that this case recognizes the existence of the reasonable erotomaniac .9 While we do not necessarily agree with Norrie s specific assertions regarding provocation we do agree that role of the reasonable or ordinary person in criminal law is both contentious and problematic.	en_US
dc.publisher	Australasian Law Teachers Association	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Australasian Law Teachers Association : Law and Public Policy: Taming the Unruly Horse?	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	ALTA	en_US
dc.title	The Not So Ordinary, Reasonable person or the man From Clapham Just Got Off the Bus	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.location	Sydney	en_US
utslib.location.activity	University of Western Australia	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
dc.location.activity	University of Western Australia	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Sydney	en_US
pubs.start-date	2007-09-23	en_US

Abstract:

In Crime, Reason and History Alan Norrie argues that criminal law is neither rational nor principled, so that the extraordinary is as much the norm as the ordinary. 1 In a subsequent article, Norrie seeks to use the objective test in provocation to demonstrate his point. As Norrie states,2 this has led, in England, to the apparent but somewhat irrational recognition in law of a reasonable glue sniffer ,3 reasonable immature person 4 and a reasonable obsessive .5 It is possible to add others such as the reasonable battered woman 6 and reasonable depressive .7 In referring to the Australian High Court case of Stingel v R,8 Norrie further suggests that this case recognizes the existence of the reasonable erotomaniac .9 While we do not necessarily agree with Norrie s specific assertions regarding provocation we do agree that role of the reasonable or ordinary person in criminal law is both contentious and problematic.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/7737