Crimes Mental Impairment consultation paper.pdf - Victorian Law ...

Victorian Law Reform Commission
Review of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997: Consultation Paper
218
Jurisdiction Legislation Definition
s 27(1) – mental impairment includes senility, intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage and severe
personality disorder.
Criminal Code 2002
(ACT)
Australian Capital
Territory
s 27(2) – mental illness is an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of long or short duration
and whether permanent or temporary, but does not include a condition (a reactive condition) resulting from
the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary external stimuli.
s 28(1) – A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if, when carrying out the conduct required for
the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that—
(a) the person did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b) the person did not know that the conduct was wrong; or
(c) the person could not control the conduct.
s 28(2) – a person does not know that conduct is wrong if the person cannot reason with a moderate degree
of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as seen by a reasonable person, is wrong.
s 43A – ‘mental illness’ means an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of long or short
duration and whether permanent or temporary, but does not include a condition that results from the reaction
of a healthy mind to extraordinary stimuli (although such a condition may be evidence of a mental illness if it
involves some abnormality and is prone to recur).
Northern Territory Criminal Code 1983
(NT)
‘mental impairment’ includes senility, intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage and involuntary intoxication.
s 43C(1) – The defence of mental impairment is established if the court finds that a person charged with
an offence was, at the time of carrying out the conduct constituting the offence, suffering from a mental
impairment and as a consequence of that impairment:
(a) he or she did not know the nature and quality of the conduct;
(b) he or she did not know that the conduct was wrong (that is he or she could not reason with a moderate
degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong);
or
(c) he or she was not able to control his or her actions.