This past week has two debates arise about parental liability. In England there is proposed a law change to make parents liable while in America, there has been another tragedy of teens shooting and killing others, with a gun, then killing themselves. The mother of the distraught teen who had taken her gun, called the police to report his disturbing behaviour and her gun missing from their home. 

However, what if the law, in the USA was to be altered, as proposed in England. Would she have made this phone call to the police. As it was, the police did not find the two teens in time to prevent the crime of homicide and dual suicide. 

It is timely to recall that the law can sometimes have outcomes we do not desire, as law changers. 

The law should alter its course to meet the needs of society and does so…however sometimes this is done hastily, as it was, during the murder of the young woman in Dunedin, Sophie, by her then boy friend, Clayton Weatherspoon. IN 2008 he ascended the stairs to her bedroom, locked her and he in and stabbed her some 270 odd times, using memorably, as pair of scissors (as one weapon).  The defence was, she came at him with said scissors.

The case had an immediate media response of outrage. This was too on the back of Mr Weatherspoon spending some two days in the witness box being examined where he at times, looked as if giving his stellar performance.

Two things arise from that “performance” (my words not any journalist). The first is for lawyers.

Mr Weatherspoon was represented in 2008 and into appeals, by a silk (Q C) and the now deceased, Greg King.

The calling of his evidence in his defence (provocation) has often lead me to re think not if to call a defendant (in his/her own defence) but how this is to be executed.

I remarked to one silk recently, who was boasting to me how he had a 20 page brief of evidence, for his defendant to call. I said that he ought not let it fall in front of the jury as Mr Weatherspoon did…The look on that silk’s face dropped. This is because for those of us lawyers watching our colleagues cases, we often judge their and their client’s “performance” in the witness box, but this is often done by snippets in the media.

Next Mr Weatherspoon did suffer, according to expert witnesses called in the case, from a mental impairment or disease,  of the mind. Rather than use this to say he ought to be found less culpable as he said to the jury he was instead, provoked. This would have resulted in a manslaughter (only) conviction, had the jury agreed. He was provoked outside the “normal” experience of you or I (if we are normal) given his mental impairment/disease.

This mental impairment, is recognised internationally, as narcissism.

This term is a favourite of all, and pop psychology abounds.

The ancient Greek hero Narcissi, and his lovely imp Echo, tell the sad story of love (of one’s self) to the exclusion of others (Echo) and her unrequited love for him.

Narcissi questions her, while lovingly looking into the pool (at himself) “who loves you more than I?” She can only echo back to him the same words, he says to her. He retorts in anger: “you love me?” as she can repeat this to him, she begins to falter and cry at her own physical impairment of not being able to say what she really wants: “I love you”.

Narcissi stares longingly into the pond at his own reflection, only to eventually perish in his own self love while Echo runs into the hills to hide in self loathing. Hence the “narcissist.” 

It is however, difficult for any right minded person, unless you are very kind, open and without prejudice, to feel anything for the narcissist except contempt. Pile this on, with the young woman being killed when so young, and about to embark on her life to move to Wellington and well….the rest is history.

Mr Weatherspoon was convicted fairly readily, despite two days in the witness box attempting to defend this with provocation. And he had support from expert witnesses who could say he did suffer from this disorder.

Potter, J sentenced him to 18 years prison as a minimum serve. Her remarks however were, quite visceral. at sentencing She found him to be not only wanting in proving his self defence of provocation, but that he knew exactly what he was doing and planned it.

Having appeared before Potter, J and spoken to her many times outside the court, in memorable conversations about matters ephemeral (such as not knowing yourself) I found it a remark about Mr Weatherspoon that was unexpected. Potter, J is (and was - she is now retired) a fair and merciful judge - but it is simply a reminder of how some mental impairments are just not acceptable, to one’s ears.

A return to the liability of parents, for their children’s acts. The defence of provocation was altered by the law makers, quickly. That this was an overreaction (too hastily done) and is wrong as a law response, is well documented. I agree. The law ought to respond and change, but this should be approached conservatively (that is, very very slowly). Too quick and you loose key rights and unexpected results occur. We now have men and women deprived genuinely of an entire and valid defence, owing to this one, exceptional case. I say exceptional given that narcissism, while there may be thought by the general public to describe many of us, in fact describes few of us. 

The defence was often engaged by women, often successfully. This afforded those women, driven to commit crimes of murder, or other serious crimes (motor manslaughter) when battered by their deceased/victim. or their man/mate

The question of remoteness often arose - was it an immediate response to being battered and was it proportionate? So a woman getting battered once per week compared with every day, who then poisons her man? Versus the women being bashed and she grabs the nearest available thing and lashes out to wound him, then leaves him to die…or finishes him off finally some time (later). These factual scenarios are real, not imaginary (as I have represented women and men where the same has happened with the same questions. The law however is tight (that is, not forgiving and generous). You either fit its straight jacket or not.