Reforms to validate victims in mental incompetence verdicts

The term ‘not guilty due to mental incompetence’ will be axed under reforms proposed by the State Government in a move to better reflect court findings and validate victims.

While the terminology around ‘not guilty’ due to mental incompetence remains factually accurate, over the years there has been a growing consensus that the phrase can be misleading and fails to adequately reflect the legal consequences that flow from this type of court finding and the impact on victims given that the conduct has been proven.

Under the reforms introduced to State Parliament today, the term would be replaced with a finding of ‘conduct proved, but not criminally responsible’ due to mental incompetence.

Quotes

Attributable to Kyam Maher

If someone is seriously killed or injured by a person who is found to have been mentally incompetent to commit the offence, it’s easy to understand why the use of the words ‘not guilty’ can be so distressing to the victim or their loved ones.

Those words of ‘not guilty’ carry a certain meaning and, in the broader community, could be easily misunderstood.

We feel that these changes better reflect both the serious impact of their actions, the consequences for victims and the nature of the finding against the accused.

This change would not have occurred without the advocacy and bravery of both Chris Smith and Susan Scardigno, along with the tireless work of the former Commissioner for Victims’ Rights, Bronwyn Killmier, and her successor Sarah Quick, who have advocated for this important reform to our laws.