Introduction to special edition

Abstract

Since its inception in 1978, ANZAPPL has sought to foster dialogue between legal professionals and mental health professionals. Importantly, this endeavour has always been not multidisciplinary but interdisciplinary: it is not simply that different professions make distinct contributions to the effective working of the law; rather, there are interactive relationships between the work done in their distinct professional discourses. The needs of the law pose certain questions that mental health experts may seek to answer; conversely, mental health professionals provide answers that may shape and at times constrain jurisprudence. The nuances and complexities of this dialectical relationship are especially evident in the domain of criminal responsibility and the associated issue of appropriate sentencing practice as applied to persons with mental health concerns. There is a natural synergy between the aims of ANZAPPL and those of the RANZCP Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry: training and professional development in the delivery of expert evidence to the courts and other decision making bodies is a central aim of the Faculty. The one day event on which this special edition of the journal is based was delivered jointly by the two bodies. It brought together a diverse range of outstanding experts in an effort to illuminate a range of emerging themes relevant to criminal responsibility and mental health. We were fortunate indeed to have President Chris Maxwell open the proceedings. In his scene-setting paper, he eloquently provides a comprehensive but accessible overview of the moral philosophical underpinnings of criminal responsibility. In doing so he illustrates the importance of mental health expertise in ensuring that the courts discharge their responsibilities in a way that is not only fair and just, but also promotes constructive public policy. In passing, we acknowledge here the immense contribution that President Maxwell has made to promoting psychologicallyinformed jurisprudence throughout his career, most notably in his tenure as President of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Jamie Walvisch, in a typically scholarly and well-reasoned paper, discusses the important emerging construct of ‘meta-culpability’. In doing so, not only does he clearly lay out the philosophical foundations for that construct but also lays bare both its strengths and its limitations, illustrating the complex interplay between jurisprudential thinking and the mental health field. He argues that mental health experts should adopt comprehensive