Another comment I'd have is more formal inclusion of evidence! If you can, instead of presenting "the case of Roberto Curti," try to actually give the court reference (R v Curti 20??) or the media article you are using as evidence. This elevates your essay to a bit of 'retell' to actually pointing to evidence and building your argument from there.
Realistically, you want as much evidence as you can squeeze in. Currently you have:
- 4 pieces of legislation (good!)
- 5 cases (three of them formal references, 2 informal)
- 4 or 5 media references/quotes
- 1 or 2 other little bits
So you've hit the target you laid out! However, this is a 1600 word essay, in an exam you need that word count to drop but most of the evidence to stay. It's about being more sophisticated with your evidence, more evidence driven. For example, I'd take this whole chunk:
Provocation used as a defence in the criminal trial process has allowed lesser sentences to be granted to offenders who successfully argued that they were ‘provoked’ by the victim’s actions. However, old legislation allowed for leniency in the granting of provocation, offenders deserving of a more severe punishment get off with a reduced sentence. This is greatly emphasised in the R v Singh case, where Singh successfully reduced his sentence for murdering his wife by arguing she “provoked’ him. The success of Singh in arguing provocation as a defence epitomises how conflicting interests are a large reason for “tension in the law.” This case sparked large public outcry, claiming a culture of “blaming the victim” is allowed with such lenient granting of this defence. I could replace that with:
The case of R v Singh (2012) epitomises the tension between community interests and justice for the offender, with the six year imprisonment sentence handed down viewed as disproportionate to the crime committed, sparking media outcry (perhaps reference an article here). Though the case did lead to succesful reform, the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014 (NSW), clearly defences to murder are a significant cause of tension in the legal system."^^ Much punchier, nearly half the words, and more evidence driven. I agree with meerae, in that removing just a bit of the fluff would help focus your argument and reduce your word length