❓ Mr. Quigley questions the Minister for Police regarding the consideration of mental impairment in sentencing under new home burglary legislation and the bill's debate priority. The Minister defends the legislation, emphasizing victim relief and mandatory penalties, while challenging the opposition's stance.
AnsweredQoN 97Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CRIMINAL LAW (MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACCUSED) ACT —
''MENTAL IMPAIRMENT'' — DEFINITION
97. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY to the Minister for
Police:
I refer to section 8 of the Criminal
Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1966, which defines mental impairment as ''intellectual
disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility''.
(1) Why will
the minister not let the courts take this into account when sentencing an
offender under her new home burglary legislation?
(2) If the
minister's home burglary legislation is as important to her as
portrayed, why has it not been the highest priority for debate this week, and
when will it be brought on?
''MENTAL IMPAIRMENT'' — DEFINITION
97. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY to the Minister for
Police:
I refer to section 8 of the Criminal
Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1966, which defines mental impairment as ''intellectual
disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility''.
(1) Why will
the minister not let the courts take this into account when sentencing an
offender under her new home burglary legislation?
(2) If the
minister's home burglary legislation is as important to her as
portrayed, why has it not been the highest priority for debate this week, and
when will it be brought on?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I
thank the member for Butler for this question. This question comes back to the
amendment on the notice paper to our home burglary legislation, put there by
the member for Butler. The member for Butler is correct, in that currently the
law sets out a standard for dealing with people with mental illness and
determines whether those persons are criminally responsible to stand trial.
Under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, if the offender at the
time of the trial has a mental impairment that renders them unable to
understand the nature of the charge, the requirement to plead, and the purpose
of the trial, they are deemed not fit to stand trial. Therefore, they would not
be affected by the member for Butler's amendment.
Section 27 of the Criminal Code
provides a defence for an offender who can prove that at the time of the
offence, as a result of mental impairment, they were not capable of
understanding what they were doing, and they could not control their actions or
know that what they were doing was wrong. Those people would not be affected by
the member for Butler's amendment. The member for Butler's
amendment, put simply, provides an avenue for people who do not satisfy the
existing provisions of the Criminal Code to avoid a mandatory penalty, purely
on the basis of mental impairment. Under our laws, if people are deemed fit to
stand trial—bearing in mind they have already satisfied the test of
those other provisions of the code—they will be treated equally; and,
if convicted, they will be subject to a mandatory penalty and will be penalised
equally.
Our legislation has been put in place
in this state to provide relief for the victims of crime. Those minimum
mandatory sentences are there for us to reset the baseline to ensure that those
victims of crime can see that those violent offenders are placed behind bars
for a long time, thereby protecting the community from the actions of those
offenders. That is why that legislation is in front of this house, and I look
forward to seeing that legislation debated. I put it to the member for Butler
and to the Labor opposition that it is not going to satisfy the community of
Western Australia if they just sit there and say, ''Well, we don't
oppose it.'' They either support the legislation or they oppose the
legislation. That is how it works in this place. If they do not agree with the
legislation as constructed, vote against it! Vote no! That is what this place
is all about. I look forward to hearing their views and seeing them vote,
thank the member for Butler for this question. This question comes back to the
amendment on the notice paper to our home burglary legislation, put there by
the member for Butler. The member for Butler is correct, in that currently the
law sets out a standard for dealing with people with mental illness and
determines whether those persons are criminally responsible to stand trial.
Under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, if the offender at the
time of the trial has a mental impairment that renders them unable to
understand the nature of the charge, the requirement to plead, and the purpose
of the trial, they are deemed not fit to stand trial. Therefore, they would not
be affected by the member for Butler's amendment.
Section 27 of the Criminal Code
provides a defence for an offender who can prove that at the time of the
offence, as a result of mental impairment, they were not capable of
understanding what they were doing, and they could not control their actions or
know that what they were doing was wrong. Those people would not be affected by
the member for Butler's amendment. The member for Butler's
amendment, put simply, provides an avenue for people who do not satisfy the
existing provisions of the Criminal Code to avoid a mandatory penalty, purely
on the basis of mental impairment. Under our laws, if people are deemed fit to
stand trial—bearing in mind they have already satisfied the test of
those other provisions of the code—they will be treated equally; and,
if convicted, they will be subject to a mandatory penalty and will be penalised
equally.
Our legislation has been put in place
in this state to provide relief for the victims of crime. Those minimum
mandatory sentences are there for us to reset the baseline to ensure that those
victims of crime can see that those violent offenders are placed behind bars
for a long time, thereby protecting the community from the actions of those
offenders. That is why that legislation is in front of this house, and I look
forward to seeing that legislation debated. I put it to the member for Butler
and to the Labor opposition that it is not going to satisfy the community of
Western Australia if they just sit there and say, ''Well, we don't
oppose it.'' They either support the legislation or they oppose the
legislation. That is how it works in this place. If they do not agree with the
legislation as constructed, vote against it! Vote no! That is what this place
is all about. I look forward to hearing their views and seeing them vote,
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.