Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

DEFENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH IMPAIRMENT OR COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT:, Section 30:…

- - - - a) the person has a temporary or ongoing distubance of thought, mood, volition, perception or memory, and
        
        b) the disturbance would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes, and
        
        c) the disturbance impairs the emotional wellbeing, judgment or behaviour of the person.
      - 2) A mental health impairment may arise from any of the following disorder but may also arise for other reasons -
        
        a) an anxiety disorder
        
        b) an affective disorder, including clinical depression and bipolar disorder
        
        c) a psychotic disorder
        
        d) a substance induced mental disorder that is not temporary
        
        3) Does not have a mental health impairment for the purposes of this Act if the persons impairment is caused solely by -
        a) temporary effect of ingesting a substance, or
        b) a substance use disorder
  - - - a) the person has an ongoing impairment in comprehension, reason, judgment, learning or memory, and
      - b) the person has an ongoing impairment in comprehension, reason, judgment, learning or memory, and
      - c) the impairment result from damage to or dysfunction, development delay or deterioration of the persons brain or mind that may arise from a condition set out in subsection (2) or for other reasons/
      - 2) A cognitive impairment may arise from any of the following conditions but may also arise for other reasons:
        
        a) intellectual disability
        
        b) borderline intellectual functioning
        
        c) dementia
        
        d) an acquired brain injury
        
        e) drug or alcohol related brain damage, including alcohol spectrum disorder
        
        1 more item...
  - - - R v Porter: “A person does not know the quality and nature of their act if they do not appreciate the physical nature of the act they were doing. This encompasses such situations as where a person may have so little capacity for understanding the nature and destruction of life that to kill another is no more than breaking a twig or destroying an inanimate object. In such a case he would not know the implications and what it really amounted to”
    - - That is, the person could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. • Did A appreciate the wrongfulness of the particular act he/she was doing at the particular time? (Porter 1933).