Emergency Episode: Lindsay Clancy's Mistrial, Prison Overcrowding and Character References

Lex Lasry (0:03)

Welcome to Law The Podcast, I'm Lex Lasry.

Greg Barns (0:05)

I'm Greg Barns.

Lex Lasry (0:06)

This is probably what you would call an emergency episode, Greg, No Guest.

Greg Barns (0:10)

No Guest, on the phone from Hobart, dealing with technology.

Lex Lasry (0:15)

Well, it's the exigencies of being media stars, Greg.

Greg Barns (0:18)

Well, it's like being out in the trenches, you radio in. Anyway, we will grin and bear it.

Lex Lasry (0:27)

We will. Now, I thought we'd start the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy in Massachusetts. Only topical because after some weeks of deliberations or trial and then deliberations, the jury announced that they were unable to reach a verdict and were split 11 to 1

The intelligence seems to be that the 11 were for acquittal and the 1 was for conviction. The big issue in the trial was the fact of postpartum psychosis on the part of Lindsay Clancy which means a psychiatric condition as a result of childbirth or the aftermath of childbirth. And it seems to have divided everyone who's followed the trial between those who think the mental health of Lindsay Clancy is a try on and those who think this is a murder that occurred because she was never properly looked after in the first place.

SPEAKER_3 (1:18)

Is Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible for the deaths of her three young children? Lindsay Clancy doesn't dispute carrying out the killings of five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan before she jumped out of a second window floor.

Prosecutors say she acted deliberately, but she's pleaded not guilty to murder charges. Her defence team argues that she was suffering from a severe postpartum mental illness, including psychosis, and was unable to understand the consequences of her actions.

Lex Lasry (1:49)

We've been down this road before, Greg, with these sort of cases.

Greg Barns (1:52)

These cases are very difficult and tragic all around, but it's a good example of where the law and science, particularly in the area of neuropsych and psychiatry, and the issue of whether or not somebody has free agency or free will are an issue. I think as we develop forensic medicine and as we develop a greater understanding of the impact of what is often called, I think, antinatal depression, we are, I hope, getting to the view that some otherwise really decent people do something that's terrible.

Lex Lasry (2:32)

Yeah. There's a lady who was quoted in today's age, Anita Link, who had also been diagnosed with postpartum psychosis. It's not just depression, it's psychosis. So it's a loss of contact with reality.

And she's making the point in today's paper that really it could have been her. And it could be anyone who's suffering from this condition, who is not being properly looked after. And I think part of the trouble is that a lot of people simply don't recognize the condition. And in turn, a lot of people see it claimed and think, as we discussed in our earlier episode with Tim Marsh, that these sort of things are just an excuse to commit violent crime.

Greg Barns (3:10)

Well, it's the same with PTSD. In the 70s and 80s and 90s, I don't think anyone had heard of PTSD. But of course, it is now recognized as it should be, its impact on so many members of our community, particularly, for example, the military who suffer on the battlefield, but also women who are subject to terrible violence over the years.

And I don't think anyone should downplay it, because you and I have acted for and you would have seen from the bench people whose lives are just broken as a result of PTSD.

Lex Lasry (3:45)

Yeah, well, it made me think back over the number of cases I've done, which are cases of filicide, that is cases where parents have killed their children. There's at least four that I did, including Robert Farquharson, which is probably the most famous of them, and Acon Gwode who drowned her children in a lake. It's horrifying. And I mean, they're traumatic cases. And I think the thing about these cases is that when people get involved in them, particularly the onlookers, I think the jury are probably doing the best they could, but the onlookers suddenly become very vocal and very judgmental about people in this rather rare and dangerous situation.

Greg Barns (4:20)

Well, I think it raises a broader issue, the way the law treats, as I said, free will and agency, just to segue a little bit. I mean, it's said, as I understand it in the law, that if you have a drug induced psychosis, that it's no defense to say that you're acting in a way inconsistent with free will. But the more you know about, and we know about neuropsychology and psychiatry, the more I think there is a need for the law to look at the issue of agency and free will. Because of course, it's based on a rational actor theory. It's a very, very complex issue. And of course, the law takes personal responsibility very seriously, and I think is loathe to diminish it without very, very good reason. And we've seen that happen a bit with PTSD, and we're seeing it hopefully happen in relation to not just this case, but other cases, tragic cases.