In Western Australia, when insanity is raised as a defence in a murder or wilful murder trial, the trial judge's direction to the jury to consider insanity before specific intent is not erroneous. However, the court was divided on whether this order is mandatory: three judges held Hawkins requires it, while two held the trial judge retains discretion provided correct directions are given on each issue and the jury is told to consider unqualified acquittal before insanity. The proper construction of s 653(1)(b) — whether the jury must always identify the specific offence when acquitting on grounds of unsoundness of mind — remains unresolved, with the court divided.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 25 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 25 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.