Hawkins v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an appeal by Hawkins against a conviction. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility and relevance of evidence relating to a mental disorder suffered by the appellant, particularly in the context of defences available under Tasmanian law. The Crown argued that the appellant's reliance on his mental disorder to explain his conduct effectively placed him on the path towards a defence of insanity, a defence not available in Tasmania in the form sought by the appellant.

The legal issues before the court included whether a mental disorder, if labelled as a "mental disease" by the accused, automatically precludes its consideration in relation to the voluntariness and intent of an act. The court was also required to determine if there was a principled distinction between common law and Code jurisdictions regarding the relevance of mental disorders to defences such as automatism and insanity, and whether such disorders could be relevant to the issue of intent even if not fitting the criteria for a formal defence.

The Crown submitted that the Tasmanian Parliament had deliberately not enacted a defence of diminished responsibility, unlike some other Australian jurisdictions. It was argued that if an accused person sought to rely on a mental disease as an explanation for their conduct or the absence of a particular mental element, they were essentially pursuing a defence of insanity. The Crown contended that authorities dealing with automatism and insanity in both common law and Code jurisdictions were relevant, and that the appellant's attempt to distinguish these cases was unfounded. While conceding that mental disorders could be relevant to intent in certain circumstances, the Crown maintained that if the explanation for conduct stemmed from a "mental disease," it would lead down the path of insanity, which was not a viable defence in Tasmania.