The issue raised by the appeal is whether in discharging this burden the appellant was required to prove that the provocation was not 'based on' anything done (or believed to have been done) by the deceased to change the relationship, notwithstanding that such conduct (or believed conduct) was not the conduct that he claimed had induced his loss of self-control. The 2011 amendments placed the burden of proof of the defence on the accused.

Section 304 was amended in 2011 to exclude the defence (save in circumstances of a most extreme and exceptional character) in the case of the unlawful killing of the accused's domestic partner where the sudden provocation is “based on anything” done by the deceased, or anything the accused believes the deceased has done, to end or to change the nature of the relationship or to indicate in any way that the relationship may, should or will end or change. Facts: The appeal concerned the partial defence of provocation, which operates to reduce what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter, under s 304(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld).