I refer to Silvio Camilleri’s letter entitled Legal Concept Of Insanity (October 4).
Dr Camilleri seems to base his arguments on the distinction between insanity in the medical or psychological sense and insanity as defined in a legal sense by our laws. In this context a person may be deemed to be mentally ill but not legally insane. There is thus a distinction between the two. And so far we are in agreement.
The feature referred to by Dr Camilleri was based on the case of a certain Anthony Schembri who allegedly stabbed his wife to death while she was being treated in hospital.
At this point it is important to note that the report submitted to the courts by the psychiatrists appointed in the Schembri case clearly states that: "At the time of the incident which resulted in the death of his wife, Mr Anthony Schembri was labouring under a state of severe paranoid schizophrenia and madness in terms of the law".
This clearly indicates that the madness referred to by the experts was insanity in terms of the law and not just any other mental illness which falls outside the purview of insanity as defined by our laws, as Dr Camilleri seems to imply.
Furthermore, the report goes on to say that Mr Schembri’s mental state was "directly and specifically affected by his illness and resulted in the offence which ended his wife’s life. At the time of the offence he did not have the capacity of judgment ie intendere e volere". Therefore, the experts are saying that Mr Schembri was insane according to the law at the time of the commission of the offence. His mental state directly resulted in the offence in question. The experts could not have been more clear and unequivocal than that!
The jury made up of nine lay people, who probably know very little if anything at all on mental illnesses or insanity, disagreed. This jury overturned the informed decision of a group of experts on the subject. And so Mr Schembri will, sometime in the near future after the criminal inquiry is concluded and a bill of indictment issued, probably face a trial by jury.
I specifically do not agree that such a decision should be left in the hands of the jury. Defining insanity, even if in a legal context, is a highly technical task which would be served better if conducted by experts in the field. A jury can never be better placed than the experts to reach such a decision. Were this to be the case what would experts be there for?
On a separate note, I also find it hard to understand the grounds adopted by the Attorney General’s office when it decides to abide by expert conclusions and order the nulle prosequi. What criteria does the AG’s office use when deciding upon such a serious matter? Is there some standard he applies or is it totally at his discretion?
I really believe it is high time that the jury system is rethought, especially in cases such as this, where technical knowledge may influence the outcome of a case. And most importantly, all of us should be voicing our opinion on this matter. Mr Schembri’s unfortunate plight could one day be our own.