Where two psychiatrists give uncontradicted and substantially unanimous evidence that an accused satisfies s 304A of the Criminal Code (Qld), and the factual basis for their opinions is supported by the evidence of other witnesses, the jury is not entitled to reject those opinions and substitute its own view based on some of the same evidence. Evidence that a depressed person continued to derive satisfaction from work or smiled at a colleague does not cast doubt on a diagnosis of depressive illness where the psychiatrists explain that such behaviour is consistent with the diagnosis. Pre-trial exchange of psychiatric reports is desirable in diminished responsibility cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.