Here are potential responses to the homework questions: 1. The case highlighted problems with the broad scope of the partial defence of provocation, which disproportionately benefited male defendants who killed abusive partners. It allowed factors like long-term abuse to be insufficient to prove loss of self-control. 2. The changes to introduce the defence of loss of control were aimed at addressing these concerns by narrowing the scope to sudden and temporary loss of control in response to a qualifying trigger. However, some argue the triggers still skew towards male violence and don't fully address the experience of abused women. The defence also remains based on a loss of control model that doesn't fit all cases. So the concerns have only been partially addressed. 3