Consider a situation where someone confronts you aggressively with an offensive comment, like, “Your daughters look like s#$s.” Your instinct might be to react violently. This illustrates how provocation can trigger impulsive actions in emotionally charged moments.
For example, on the day of the Queen’s passing, if someone makes derogatory remarks, your emotional response could lead to a reaction like, “Piss off and go back to where you came from.” Common law recognises provocation as a mitigating factor in assault cases, where legitimate provocation can reduce culpability.
The current case seems to overlook this principle. If the court ignores provocation in Hanson’s case, it risks punishing a response born from deep emotion, effectively rewarding the provocateur. This could not only skew the outcome but also stir public sentiment in favour of movements like One Nation. Either way, it’s a win for them. Unfortunately, it is an emotional roller coaster for the Respondent.