Murder or manslaughter? Victoria finding sparks legal row

Julie Ramage told her estranged husband James that sex with him was repulsive and bragged of her exploits with her new lover.

He responded by luring his wife of 22 years to their marital home in Melbourne's east, where he had made sure no one would be around, bashed her unconscious, strangled her and then buried her in a shallow grave.

The question of whether the law should consider this terrible event, described in court as a "tragedy of Shakespearean proportions", murder or manslaughter has sparked a legal row.

Provocation is a defence for murder in Victoria and in November a jury in the Victorian Supreme Court found 45-year-old James Stuart Ramage was provoked and convicted him of the lesser crime of manslaughter.

On Thursday, Supreme Court Judge Robert Osborn sentenced Ramage to 11 years in jail with a non-parole period of eight years for a killing he said was carried out "with murderous intent and savage brutality".

The judge said that although the jury had accepted the provocation defence, it was apparent the provocation was not extreme.

Before their marriage breakdown, the Ramages, to all appearances, led an outwardly normal and successful middle class life, sending their children to expensive private schools. Ramage drove a Jaguar and his wife a Mini Cooper.

They had joint assets of A$2.6 million ($2.8 million), including the two-storey home in Balwyn and holiday house at Lorne.

During the trial the court heard that Ramage had told police he "lost it" when his wife said sex with him repulsed her.

But Crown Prosecutor Julian Leckie, SC, told the court Ramage had been very much in control on the day of the killing, July 21 last year.

Mr Leckie said on that day Ramage had dismissed a tradesman who was supposed to be working at the house.

He said Ramage had a history of bullying his wife and had head-butted her and broken her nose on a previous occasion.

Mr Leckie said the killing should be considered as a "murder which has been reduced by the operation of the law of provocation".

Ramage's conviction for manslaughter has sparked a public outcry and prompted the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) to call for the provocation defence to be abolished.

Outside court on Thursday Laurence Webb, the man Julie Ramage met weeks after leaving her husband, said he believed the judge's comments showed how wrong the provocation defence was.

"We heard the judge say that he murdered Julie with murderous intent and that was clear," Mr Webb said.

"It just shows how out of place the law of provocation is. It's pretty much impossible to negate the claim of what somebody said when you have killed them, the sentence reflects that."

Mrs Ramage's twin sister Jane Ashton said she was angry at how her sister was portrayed during the trial.

"I was angry about the way that she was demonised and her character was brought into question and his character was portrayed as a pitiful and distraught man," she said.

Ms Ashton said she would have liked to have seen Ramage tried for murder but was pleased the judge had imposed a heavy sentence for manslaughter.

"I am disappointed, but at the same time you can only work within the rules," she said.

When the jury made its decision to accept the provocation defence in November, VLRC chairwoman Marcia Neave spoke out, calling for the defence to go.

Professor Neave said provocation tended to be used by men who killed their partners or ex-partners out of jealousy or anger, she said.

"The community does not accept this as a reasonable excuse for murder and our law should reflect this sentiment," she said.

The VLRC has now submitted a report to the Victorian government recommending the defence be abolished.

Professor Neave said the recommendation would not stop judges from taking provocation into consideration when they were sentencing murderers.

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls has said the state government accepts that the provocation defence is outdated.

A spokeswoman for Mr Hulls said the VLRC report was currently under review and a decision from the government on whether it would abolish the provocation defence would probably be made within the next six months.

- AAP