Only a selection of mental illnesses, as understood by psychiatrists and psychologists, qualify as mental illness for the criminal law.įor the insanity defence, mental illness must affect the individual in a particular way. Part of the explanation is the difference between medical and legal definitions of “insanity”. What’s going on here? How does this square with what we know about the high numbers of individuals in prison with mental illnesses? The NSW Law Reform Commission found just 32 successful defences in 2011-12. It’s hard to be precise about numbers here, but we do know that very few individuals successfully raise defences such as insanity or mental illness. According to this logic, successful mental illness defences are suspect.īut, contrary to this logic, we should be concerned about the low numbers of people charged with criminal offences who raise what is known in criminal law as the mental impairment or mental illness defence.

There is a preconception that the mental illness and related defences are seen in the public discourse as “get out of jail free” cards illegitimate excuses – perhaps even fabricated or made up – allowing some individuals to “get off” criminal charges. This type of case frequently raises concerns about the validity of this defence. A Supreme Court jury acquitted Woodhead of murder on the basis of mental impairment. The man, Easton Woodhead, who suffers from schizophrenia, killed Morgan Perry, believing Perry had stolen his motorcycle. A Melbourne man was found not guilty this week of murdering a homeless man by reason of mental impairment.

A Vision of Murder by Price McNaughton