ABSTRACT
Legislative regimes dealing with the dispositions given to those found not guilty of serious criminal offences by reason of insanity (NGRI) or mental impairment (NGRMI) have been controversial and in flux for over a quarter of a century. Across countries and within Australia they vary in significant respects. Traditionally, and still in some jurisdictions, the prediction of risk in respect to the release of persons found NGRI or NGRMI remains the province of the executive upon advice from mental health professionals which may or may not be taken (Re VAS 2010). The risk in this scenario is that politicization of the process can lead to decision-making that is extremely risk averse, cautious, and not adequately informed by clinical experience. The consequence can be that acquittees spend inappropriately long periods in confinement or under supervision. In some other jurisdictions, the task has been remitted either to the courts that, but for the NGRI/NGRMI verdict, would have sentenced the accused or to a multi-disciplinary tribunal constituted for this specialist purpose.
