Thank you for your representation and help. Fingers crossed for the next step and parole. I just want to say that from the first phone call to your office, your service has been outstanding and have put my mind at ease. I am glad I picked your number to ring.
Thank you Armstrong Legal, the lawyers that have helped over the past 3 years but more importantly, thank you to Thomas Allen for the major part you and Mr Buckland played. Cannot thank you enough. Cheers.
Hi all. I would like to thank Ms Lisa Riley for all her help with my legal issues this past month. It was the most harrowing experience of my life and thanks to her expertise, professionalism and knowledge of the law, I came out almost unscathed. I have no hesitation in recommending Lisa Riley and Armstrong Legal if you need help. The service is amazing and the cost was very minimal for the great outcome. Thank you Lisa for helping me in the most difficult time.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. My whole life I was thrown away, you made me feel like I did mean something. I could not have asked for a better lawyer. Your compassion and love for your job is inspiring. Your upfront and honesty were muchly appreciated, you are a beautiful person. Thank you for not giving up on me and thank you for all the work you put in. I wish you all the best for the future and I will be recommending you to everyone I know. You're amazing!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
The Verdins Principles
It is well known that persons accused of criminal offences may achieve a not guilty finding based on insanity. However, although a lot of people charged with offences suffer from mental illnesses, the defence of mental impairment is rarely raised and even less often succeeds. A large proportion of criminal defendants who suffer from mental illnesses are not impaired seriously enough to have recourse to a full defence. Offenders in this situation can rely on the Verdins Principles, which were set out in a 2007 decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. The Verdins Principles provide guidance on how courts may take into account a defendant’s mental illness when determining the appropriate sentence.
When a court sentences an offender it must determine what are the appropriate sentencing orders for the circumstances of the offending and the circumstances of the offender. It must balance multiple factors including the importance of various sentencing principles such as deterrence, denunciation, community protection and punishment as well as considerations specific to an individual accused.
When a person is sentenced for offences, the defence has the opportunity to make submissions in mitigation of their offending and on what penalties are appropriate. The defence generally aims to persuade the court to impose a lenient sentence. The factors that are most relevant to the court are matters relating to the offending conduct and the personal situation of the offender.
Before the 2007 Verdins judgment which is outlined below, mental illness was deemed relevant to sentencing in cases where the accused suffered from a ‘psychiatric illness not amounting to insanity’. As such, the legal framework made it clear that offenders who were suffering from mental illness falling short of the mental impairment defence when their offences were committed should still have their condition taken into account by the court.
What are the Verdins principles?
In 2007, the Victorian Court of Appeal, heard three cases on appeal (referred to as the Verdins judgment). The offenders pleaded guilty and the defence raised mental health issues during their submissions. The offenders all suffered from conditions either at the time of the offending or at the time of sentencing and they sought that the court consider these when determining their sentences.
In the judgement, the Court of Appeal outlined six factors that dictate how mental illness is to be taken into account at sentencing. These principles are often referred to as the Verdins Principles.
A mental impairment that was suffered at the time of the offending conduct may reduce the offender’s moral culpability. Where moral capacity is reduced, the sentencing purpose of denunciation will be a less relevant factor.
Choice of sanction
An offender’s mental impairment may affect the penalties and conditions imposed by the court. For example, it may mean that imprisonment is an inappropriate disposition if the offender has ongoing mental health issues that are likely to be aggravated by being in custody.
Depending on the nature and severity of the symptoms shown by the offender and the offender’s mental capacity, the sentencing objective of general denunciation may be limited under the Verdins principles.
An offender’s mental impairment may limit the extent to which specific deterrence is relevant as a sentencing purpose. Ordinarily, any sanction determined by a court should take into account the need to deter the offender from future offending, but this may be less applicable where the person’s mental functioning was impaired at the time of the offence.
Effect of sentence
Where a person suffers a mental health condition at the time of sentencing, or where there is evidence to suggest that such a condition may recur in the near future, a sentencing disposition may weigh more heavily on them than it would on someone who doesn’t have that mental health condition. This may also be taken into account at sentencing.
Risk of imprisonment
When there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significant detrimental effect on a person’s mental health, this will be a relevant factor when deciding on the appropriate sentence.
The Verdins Principles were a significant broadening of existing case law on mental health and sentencing. However, since the decision was handed down, the courts have taken a few steps to limit its application.
While a mental health condition has the effect of mitigating offending, drug or alcohol use (even where the effect has a similar psychological effect as a diagnosable condition) tends not to reduce an offender’s level of moral culpability. The basis for such a principle is that of ‘prior fault’ – for example, when a person knows that they tend to become aggressive when consuming alcohol, it is an aggravating factor if they recklessly became intoxicated and committed a violent offence.
There are however some exceptions to this general rule. A person has a valid defence to a criminal charge if they ingested alcohol or drugs involuntarily, such as where they were forced to do so or did not unwittingly. An offender’s culpability may also be reduced where their intoxication resulted in acting out of character, or where it was their mental health condition rather than their substance use, that was the primary driver of the offending.
Personality disorders, whilst diagnosable psychological conditions, do not in themselves activate the Verdins Principles. Regardless of the diagnostic label, an offender must prove that they suffered or suffer from an impairment of their mental functioning. Where an accused has been diagnosed with a personality disorder and that the condition results in immaturity or other personality trait failings that fall short of mental impairment, the Verdins Principles cannot be engaged.
When should the Verdins Principles be raised?
The court does not always have to consider the Verdins Principles. It is only required to do so when the defence raises them and where there is sufficient evidence to establish that the accused was suffering a mental impairment at the time of the offending, at the time of sentencing or that it is likely they will be affected during their sentence.
Standard of proof
It is for the defence to establish, on the balance of probabilities, the existence of facts that give rise to the activation of the Verdins Principles. It is generally not sufficient to merely produce evidence of the fact the offender has been diagnosed with a mental health condition. An expert report is often prepared by a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist that details how the person’s condition impacted on the offending. This report will be prepared solely for the sentencing court.
If you require legal advice in relation to a criminal law matter or in relation to any other legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
A conjugal visit is a designated period in which a prison inmate is allowed to be in private with a…
The offences of importing or exporting a border controlled drug is a Commonwealth offence and the penalties that can be…
The Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions is the department responsible for prosecuting commonwealth crimes. Commonwealth crimes are crimes that are…
WHERE TO NEXT?
If you suspect that you may be under investigation, or if you have been charged with an offence, it is vital to get competent legal advice as early as possible. Our lawyers are highly specialised in criminal law and will be able to guide you through the process while dealing with the various authorities related to your matter.
WHY CHOOSE ARMSTRONG LEGAL?
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth