The so-called ‘homosexual panic defence', which allows defendants to claim they were panicked into murdering their victim as the result of unwanted gay advances, is being addressed by gay MP Tim Barnett, who will introduce a private member's bill into Parliament, to remove the defence. In the past, defendants have been found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter, rather than murder, after successfully arguing the advances of their gay victim repulsed them. Barnett has asked colleagues to draft a bill to remove the defence, and is expected to introduce it to Parliament within two or three months, reports the Sunday Star Times. The Law Commission is currently investigating the issue and will likely recommend repealing section 169 of the Crimes Act, which allows for the defence of provocation. The defence of provocation was used by rent boy Phillip Edwards, who was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, for the killing of gay Auckland designer David McNee, three years ago. Edwards claimed McNee violated their ‘no touching' agreement. Jeremy Lambert, Chair of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation has called the defence an “absurdity.” “This is a particularly hideous piece of law that was made on the sly,” he told the Sunday Star Times. “It can mean you would never be found guilty of murdering a gay man.” Warren Young, Deputy President of the Law Commission said that a judge, at sentencing, would normally consider mitigating factors such as provocation, not when deciding on what charge the defendant should face. Ref: Sunday Star Times (d)