Attorney-General v Bosanquet

[2012] QCA 367

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Mental Health
2. › Declaration or finding of mental illness or incapacity
3. › Unsound mind
4. › Whether mental illness deprived accused of capacity to control actions
5. › Whether mental illness deprived accused of capacity to know he ought not do the act
6. › Whether state of mind resulted from intentional intoxication
7. › Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), ss 267, 269, sch 2
8. › Criminal Code (Qld), ss 27, 28
1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Insanity
4. › Deprivation of capacity
5. › Distinction between deprivation and impairment of capacity
6. › Whether evidence of planning and concealment inconsistent with deprivation of volitional capacity
7. › Criminal Code (Qld), s 27
1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Insanity
4. › Capacity to know one ought not do the act
5. › Test in R v Porter
6. › Whether accused able to reason with moderate degree of sense and composure about wrongness of act
7. › Whether awareness that others would disapprove inconsistent with deprivation of cognitive capacity
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from Mental Health Court
3. › Nature of appeal
4. › Appeal in the strict sense not by way of rehearing
5. › Necessity to show error of law or fact
6. › Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), ch 2 of Pt 8

Quick Take

The presence of some (even limited) control is inconsistent with a deprivation (absence) of capacity for the purposes of s 27 of the Criminal Code (Qld), and the concept of severe or substantial impairment is not sufficient for a finding of unsoundness of mind. Expert evidence using causative language such as 'driven by' or 'accountable for' may not adequately address whether there was an actual deprivation of capacity. Evidence that mental illness was 'sufficient' to explain conduct does not necessarily establish that intoxication played no role in the deprivation of capacity.