Sentencing offenders with personality disorders: A critical analysis of DPP (Vic) v O'Neill

Jamie Mark Walvisch, Andrew Carroll

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In DPP (Vic) v O'Neill, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that personality disorders do not constitute an 'impairment of mental functioning', and so should not mitigate an offender's sentence. In doing so, it significantly limited the scope of the Verdins principles: The principles that govern the sentencing of offenders with mental health problems in all Australian jurisdictions, as well as in New Zealand. This article critiques the O'Neill decision. It argues that the Court's approach misunderstands the nature of personality disorders and improperly relies on a definition of 'impaired mental functioning' that fails to take into account the diverse ways in which mental health problems may be relevant to the sentencing process. It suggests a different approach to sentencing offenders with personality disorders.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)417-444
Number of pages28
JournalMelbourne University Law Review
Volume41
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Keywords

  • Criminal Law
  • Mental Health
  • Sentencing
  • Personality Disorders

Cite this

@article{9190c8a4a58b4893a7e7e7045b55ee4c,
title = "Sentencing offenders with personality disorders: A critical analysis of DPP (Vic) v O'Neill",
abstract = "In DPP (Vic) v O'Neill, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that personality disorders do not constitute an 'impairment of mental functioning', and so should not mitigate an offender's sentence. In doing so, it significantly limited the scope of the Verdins principles: The principles that govern the sentencing of offenders with mental health problems in all Australian jurisdictions, as well as in New Zealand. This article critiques the O'Neill decision. It argues that the Court's approach misunderstands the nature of personality disorders and improperly relies on a definition of 'impaired mental functioning' that fails to take into account the diverse ways in which mental health problems may be relevant to the sentencing process. It suggests a different approach to sentencing offenders with personality disorders.",
keywords = "Criminal Law, Mental Health, Sentencing, Personality Disorders",
author = "Walvisch, {Jamie Mark} and Andrew Carroll",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "417--444",
journal = "Melbourne University Law Review",
issn = "0025-8938",
publisher = "Melbourne University, Law Review Association",
number = "1",

}

Sentencing offenders with personality disorders : A critical analysis of DPP (Vic) v O'Neill. / Walvisch, Jamie Mark; Carroll, Andrew.

In: Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2017, p. 417-444.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sentencing offenders with personality disorders

T2 - A critical analysis of DPP (Vic) v O'Neill

AU - Walvisch, Jamie Mark

AU - Carroll, Andrew

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - In DPP (Vic) v O'Neill, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that personality disorders do not constitute an 'impairment of mental functioning', and so should not mitigate an offender's sentence. In doing so, it significantly limited the scope of the Verdins principles: The principles that govern the sentencing of offenders with mental health problems in all Australian jurisdictions, as well as in New Zealand. This article critiques the O'Neill decision. It argues that the Court's approach misunderstands the nature of personality disorders and improperly relies on a definition of 'impaired mental functioning' that fails to take into account the diverse ways in which mental health problems may be relevant to the sentencing process. It suggests a different approach to sentencing offenders with personality disorders.

AB - In DPP (Vic) v O'Neill, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that personality disorders do not constitute an 'impairment of mental functioning', and so should not mitigate an offender's sentence. In doing so, it significantly limited the scope of the Verdins principles: The principles that govern the sentencing of offenders with mental health problems in all Australian jurisdictions, as well as in New Zealand. This article critiques the O'Neill decision. It argues that the Court's approach misunderstands the nature of personality disorders and improperly relies on a definition of 'impaired mental functioning' that fails to take into account the diverse ways in which mental health problems may be relevant to the sentencing process. It suggests a different approach to sentencing offenders with personality disorders.

KW - Criminal Law

KW - Mental Health

KW - Sentencing

KW - Personality Disorders

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030122573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review Article

VL - 41

SP - 417

EP - 444

JO - Melbourne University Law Review

JF - Melbourne University Law Review

SN - 0025-8938

IS - 1

ER -