Should a defendant to an action in trespass be entitled to a reduction in compensatory damages on the basis of provocation by the claimant? Judges and academic commentators are divided on the issue, although the weight of authority is that, in Australia, New Zealand and the UK, no such reduction is permissible. This article demonstrates that the reasons conventionally offered in support of the current position are unpersuasive, and that a strong moral argument supports the reduction of damages in many commonplace scenarios. However, the article also shows that the continued rejection of provocation might be justified on the grounds that no principled basis exists upon which to preclude its operation in normatively problematic contexts, such as domestic violence and unwanted sexual advances. It is suggested that the best solution would be for the common law to recognise a partial defence of provocation, subject only to certain principled limitations, leaving it to parliament to ‘carve out’ appropriate policy exceptions.

中文翻译：

---

侵入中的挑衅问题

进行过侵权诉讼的被告是否应根据索赔人的挑衅而有权要求赔偿损失的减少？法官和学术评论员在这个问题上意见分歧，尽管权威的重心是，在澳大利亚，新西兰和英国，不允许这样的减少。本文证明，传统上为支持当前职位而提供的理由没有说服力，并且强有力的道德论点支持在许多普通情况下减少损害赔偿。但是，该条还表明，继续拒绝挑衅是有道理的，因为没有原则性的依据可以排除挑衅在规范性有问题的情况下的运作，例如家庭暴力和不希望的性侵犯。