‘Mentally ill are not lunatics’
PEOPLE suffering mental ill health face being let down and stigmatised by “outdated” laws that still describe them as “lunatics,” says the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In an exclusive article for today’s Daily Telegraph, Max Hill QC says criminal justice has lagged behind in how it handles mental health after research found one in five victims, witnesses or defendants has a mental health condition. He said failure to modernise meant there were examples of cases where two people with similar mental health issues could receive very different criminal justice outcomes.
Ahead of a talk at the Howard League for Penal Reform tonight, he cites the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 which allows a jury to return guilty verdicts on the mentally ill and to have them incarcerated as “criminal lunatics.”
Prosecutors can also be constrained by the legal defence of insanity which is still based on a case dating back to 1843. Mr Hill will point to a Law Commission
verdict that the definition of criminal insanity is outdated, stigmatising andlags behind psychiatric understanding.
In his article (below) he says: “The time has come to bring some real momentum to the debate about how criminal justice deals with mental illness. We need to modernise our approach, knock down stigmas and ensure justice is delivered for all.
“Society has come a long way but criminal justice has not adapted at the same speed. We have to put this right.”
The Crown Prosecution Service today publishes updated guidance but Mr Hill admits that while judges in higher courts are often exemplary in handling mental health issues, it can be more difficult in magistrates’ courts. The presumption will continue to be to prosecute where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest. “This is not about letting people off,” he writes, but “more needs to be done to look at the defence of insanity, as well as how equipped magistrates’ courts and youth courts are to deal with fitness to plead.”
He adds: “There are also examples of cases involving mental health where two people in similar circumstances could conceivably receive very different outcomes.
“Other organisations, including the Law Commission, have looked at these issues and made sensible recommendations which could move things forward.”