This dissertation critically investigates the current framework for psycholegal assessment of accused persons who are suspected or alleged to have lacked criminal incapacity at the time of committing an offence. This system must function as effectively as possible to ensure the interests of justice and the community are best served. Issues that impact how effectively the criminal justice system collaborates with psychologists and psychiatrists, who act as expert forensic mental health assessors, are identified and recommendations are made accordingly. The study first examines the theoretical base regarding the terminology surrounding criminal capacity, mental illness and automatism, with regard to how the understanding of concepts differ in law and psychology and psychiatry and how this negatively affects the process of assessment. The study then investigates the constitutional rights of accused persons admitted for observation, the effect this has on the patient and legal process, the accuracy and reliability of the diagnosis and the admissibility of expert evidence. Next a comparative study is made utilising English Law as a tool for analysis. The main findings are that lack of understanding and clarity are the main issues that hinder the collaboration between the legal and mental health care professions and that this may be remedied by a system of registration and education for forensic psycholegal assessors. An alternate and concurrent method of direct referral is also suggested as it may relieve some of the strain on the current system. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2011. / Public Law / unrestricted

This study evaluates the constitutionality of section 78(1B) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA), which places the burden of proving criminal capacity on the party who raises the issue, against section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (CRSA). In a legal system such as ours, that has a high regard for equality, any form of unequal treatment must be scrutinised, assessed and, if found to be unjust, rooted out. Even more so where the unequal treatment affects a marginalised minority group such as the mentally disabled. This study weighs section 78(1B) against section 9(1) of the CRSA. It also weighs the section against section 9(3) of the CRSA. Attempts are made to justify possible infringements according to section 36 of the CRSA. An appropriate remedy is then ascertained. This study also provides the historical development of section 78(1B) of the CPA – both in the common law and statute. This study furthermore provides original guidelines and principles in assessing expert evidence where criminal capacity is placed in dispute due to a mental illness or defect of the accused. The main findings are that section 78(1B) infringes on both section 9(1) and section 9(3), that it cannot be justified in terms of section 36 of the CRSA and that the appropriate remedy is the striking out of the whole section from the CPA. Copyright / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Public Law / unrestricted