find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (3-5 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Dynamic organisation ·
View details
Legal Counsel
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: North Sydney NSW 2060
· 18 month fixed term contract · 3-5 years PQE with TMT exposure
View details
Courtroom ‘turf war’ over mental incapacity

Courtroom ‘turf war’ over mental incapacity

Lawyers and medical professionals are engaging in a ‘turf war’ when defining mental incapacity in court, according to a leading law academic.

Arlie Loughnan, a senior lecturer at the School of Law in the University of Sydney and the author of a new book, Manifest Madness: Mental Incapacity in Criminal Law,  which is due to launch next Tuesday (May 29), spoke to Lawyers Weekly about tensions between clinical and legal professionals in cases involving a diminished responsibility defence.

“Lawyers say the question of mental fitness is a legal one – whether someone had the capacity to be convicted of an offence at the time of the offence. While psychiatrists say it’s a psychiatric prognosis,” she pointed out.

“Understanding where the other set of professionals is coming from is the challenge. This requires lawyers to take into account the psychiatric perspective and, equally, for medical practitioners to acknowledge the courtroom context.”

Case in point

The decision in the Peter Sutcliffe case is an example of how these courtroom tensions can play out, said Loughnan.

In 1981, the British serial killer dubbed ‘The Yorkshire Ripper’ pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of 13 women on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The prosecution intended to accept Sutcliffe’s plea after four psychiatrists diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia. But the trial judge, Justice Boreham, claimed the case was of significant public interest and ordered the matter be heard by a jury. Sutcliffe was subsequently found guilty of murder on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment.

“In this case, there are medical professionals with a set of conclusions about the person’s condition who have translated these into the language required by the law, but you still have legal questions around whether it’s appropriate to go to trial and proceed through the normal criminal process,” Loughnan said.

She added that the case raises questions around “dangerousness” and whether criminal law is appropriate for defendants with serious impairments.

“If we’re dealing with defendants who are not going to be responsible in the relevant way and appropriate subjects of punishment, we need to think about whether a different approach is needed.

“As lawyers, we need to recognise the need to protect the community, and perhaps the defendant themselves, from harmful behaviour.”

Loughnan also said there is another perspective that demands attention – the beliefs and attitudes of the lay juror.

“Lay people are bringing a more sophisticated understanding of clinical conditions and labels, as well as a reduced stigma around mental illness, to the courtroom.

“If we take this lay knowledge seriously, we would recognise that while we see a ‘turf war’ between experts of different stripes, there is actually a three-way dynamic between experts and non-experts.”

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Courtroom ‘turf war’ over mental incapacity
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
LCA president Fiona McLeod SC
Aug 17 2017
Where social fault lines meet the justice gap in Aus
After just returning from a tour of the Northern Territory, LCA president Fiona McLeod SC speaks wit...
Marriage equality flag
Aug 17 2017
ALHR backs High Court challenge to marriage equality postal vote
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) has voiced its support for a constitutional challenge to ...
Give advice
Aug 17 2017
A-G issues advice on judiciary’s public presence
Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis QC has offered his advice on the public presence of jud...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...