The law on murder is to get its first shake-up since the abolition of hanging 40 years ago. Northern Ireland will share in the review of the law on murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

The proposed reforms, which are to be subject to consultation, are quite narrow in scope, but could introduce some much needed clarity to the legislation.

The problem with murder is that there is only one sentence available on conviction — mandatory life imprisonment. It means that the court is unable to differentiate between the callous, calculated taking of life and a spontaneous action which results in death. A judge can impose a minimum jail term on a convicted murderer but that does not have to be adhered to by those who years later will adjudicate on whether or not to release the prisoner.

The proposed reforms introduce partial defences against the charge of murder. One is “fear of serious violence”. This, even the Government admits, is very akin to the existing defence of self-defence. One

possible scenario would be that of a woman who snaps after suffering abuse at the hands of her husband or partner.

This differs from the current law which says that the woman would have to act on the spur of the moment to have a defence against murder. The proposed “slow burn” defence is probably a more realistic approach.

The other partial defence — that a person was motivated by conduct or words which left them seriously wronged — is likely to be used even more exceptionally. In its own analysis of the reforms the Government could only come up with three possi

ble scenarios — a rape victim who kills her attacker after a taunt; the mother of a rape victim who kills an attacker after seeing him rape her daughter and a situation with a long-running dispute between neighbours which ends with one killing the other.

The circumstances of each case of course would have to be examined, but the partial defence would appear to be a difficult one to rely on.

What is very clear is that a “crime of passion” will no longer be a defence against murder if the proposals are adopted. A man could not rely on a defence of his outrage at his wife’s infidelity, or presumably vice-versa, as a mitigation of committing murder.

While evidence of a spouse or partner’s infidelity could be severely wounding, it can hardly be used as justification for killing the unfaithful partner.

In drawing up these reforms, the Government went against the advice of the Law Commission which wanted the introduction of American style first and second degree murder to allow juries and judges to be able to differentiate between, say, a contract killing and a killing carried out in the heat of the moment.

The partial defences introduced may help to reduce some murder charges to manslaughter. Ultimately, people who take life deserve, in the vast majority of cases, to serve a custodial sentence.

By being able to reduce murder charges to manslaughter, the courts will be able to more accurately determine the tariff that the prisoner should serve.

Indeed, in exceptional cases, someone convicted of manslaughter could be freed immediately. That ability to discriminate is a step forward and makes the law fairer.