Defendants with intellectual disability and autism spectrum conditions: the perspective of clinicians working across three jurisdictions

Figures & data

Table 1. Australian legal jurisdictions.

States	Internal territories
New South Wales (NSW)	Australian Capital Territory (ACT)
Queensland (QLD)	Australian Commonwealth Government (ACG)
South Australia (SA)	Northern Territory (NT)
Tasmania (TAS)
Victoria (VIC)
Western Australia (WA)

Table 2. Eligibility criteria for liaison and diversion services in England and Wales.

Any person over the age of criminal responsibility (ten) who is suspected of having committed a criminal offence.

The service will be accessible to individuals irrespective of the nature or class of criminal offence under investigation.

Service users most likely to be referred to and benefit from the service include the following:

those with complex, severe or persistent health needs

those with learning disabilities

those with substance misuse issues

those with acquired brain injury

those with autism spectrum disorder

those with severe or complex emotional/behavioural difficulties requiring a mental health and social care support that require enhanced specialist community intervention as part of an integrated multi-agency package of care

those with multiple sub-threshold needs

repeat offenders

veterans

females

those experiencing homelessness

those at risk, including being at risk of domestic violence, Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), safeguarding issues

service users in acute crisis with eating disorder, depression, risk of suicide, psychosis, escalating self-harm, personality disorders

service users from a minority ethnic or minority cultural background, including gypsies and travellers

Note: NHS England, 2019.

Table 3. Considerations for culpability.

Did the offender’s condition

mean it impaired their ability to exercise appropriate judgement?

impair their ability to make rational choices, or to think clearly?

impair their ability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions?

have the effect of making them disinhibited?

Were there

any elements of premeditation or pre-planning in the offence, which might indicate a higher degree of culpability?

attempts to minimise their wrongdoing or to conceal their actions, which might indicate a higher degree of culpability?

Did the offender

have any insight into their illness, or did they lack insight?

seek help, and fail to receive appropriate treatment or care?

If

there was a lack of compliance in taking medication or following medical advice, was this influenced by the condition or not?

the offender exacerbated their condition by drinking/taking drugs, were they aware of the potential effects of doing so?

Note: Adapted from the Sentencing Council (2019) Consultation, p. 9.

NHS England (2019). www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/national-liaison-and-diversion-service-specification-2019.pdf

 Google Scholar

Sentencing Council (2019). Overarching principles: Sentencing offenders with mental health conditions or disorders consultation. Sentencing Council. www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

 Google Scholar