Criminal Law Consolidation (Mental Competence) Amendment Bill 2025

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:19): 

I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Mental Competence) Amendment Bill 2025. This bill seeks to amend the terminology used in relation to a defence of mental incompetence under division 2 of part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

As honourable members would know, the courts deal with people who are suffering from mental health or cognitive impairment when they commit a crime differently to other criminal matters. It can add to the distress and anxiety that victims and other witnesses are already experiencing when the accused is not dealt with in the ordinary way under criminal law.

The emotional impact of the legal proceedings for victims of crime and their families should never be underestimated, let alone the ongoing trauma and impacts of the crime itself. Victims and families can be further affected by a court finding of 'not guilty by reason of mental incompetence'. These victims often feel a sense of injustice and despair that the defendant is not held responsible for their actions or is maybe getting away with the crime.

I understand that both the current and the former Commissioner for Victim's Rights have advocated for a change to the use of 'not guilty' in this context. It is a case of words matter, and they matter considerably for victims of crime and their families.

Recently, the tragic stabbing of Ms Julie Seed at a Plympton real estate agency in December 2023 has brought this issue to the forefront once more. Stabbing victim, Ms Susan Scardigno, and the partner of the late Ms Julie Seed, Mr Chris Smith, have bravely advocated for a change to the wording following this horrific incident. Victims and families often feel that the 'not guilty' verdict in such circumstances is confusing and triggering and that it does not reflect the reality that the objective elements of the case have been proven and that the defendant did commit a crime, even though they cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions.

This bill will change the terminology used in such findings from 'not guilty' to 'conduct proved but not criminally responsible due to mental incompetence'. I understand that this change of language will have no impact on any aspect of the trial or supervision orders that may be imposed on the defendant. The proposed terminology has been modelled on similar changes already made in New South Wales. Language is important, and this change in wording is a result of the passionate advocacy of victims and families, such as Ms Scardigno and Mr Smith, and a recommendation made by the Commissioner for Victim's Rights.

If this change provides some comfort or makes even a small difference to those impacted and affected by horrendous crimes, it is definitely worthy of being adopted by this parliament. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the chamber.