Mental Impairment Defence – Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Impairment
Case Overview
Our client was a middle-aged man charged with the false imprisonment of a family member. He had suffered a serious decline in his mental health following what might loosely be described as a mid-life crisis.
Our client had no previous episode of mental illness. However, it was apparent to those connected with the case that, in the year leading up to the offending, his mental state and activity were the product of his illness.
The decision to rely on a defence of mental impairment is a complex judgment. Where available, the decision to rely on the defence must be given careful consideration, including the potential consequences of successfully relying on it.
Defence Strategy
Immediately after his arrest, our client was medicated by psychiatrists and returned to normal, beginning quickly to think, act and see the world as he had before becoming unwell.
Given that he had no history of psychiatric illness, his response to treatment was significant. We arranged for him to be assessed by a forensic psychiatrist as soon as possible.
The forensic psychiatrist found that, at the time of the offending behaviour, our client was suffering from a mental illness and that the defence of mental impairment was available to him.
There was no dispute that our client had done the acts constituting the offences alleged in the brief of evidence. The strategic issue was whether or not he should rely on the defence.
The decision required careful consideration of the consequences of relying on mental impairment. Relying on the defence can result in a matter moving from the Magistrates' Court to the County Court, further psychiatric examinations by psychiatrists engaged by the prosecution, and, if successful, supervision of the client in the community or detention in a forensic hospital for an indefinite period.
These possibilities can extend the duration of a proceeding well beyond a simple plea and sentence, and a successful defence can still result in significant restrictions on a person's liberty.
Result
After much deliberation, the client chose to rely on the defence and was found not guilty by reason of mental impairment.
A supervision order was made indefinitely, with a period in the future at which point it will be reviewed. We successfully persuaded the judge that, given our client’s lack of criminal history, lack of history of mental illness and strong response to treatment, his treatment should be supervised in the community rather than in custody.
The case demonstrates that the decision to rely on a mental impairment defence requires careful consideration of both the available defence and the potential consequences of successfully establishing it. While relying on the defence can result in a finding of not guilty by reason of mental impairment, it can also result in significant restrictions on a person’s liberty.
Disclaimer: The case results featured are real matters handled by our firm. However, every case is different and outcomes vary depending on a range of factors, including the specific facts, circumstances and evidence involved. Past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes and should not be relied upon to predict or determine the result of your matter.