The Lindsay Clancy Case: How Would Papua New Guinea Law Treat a Mother Who Kills Her Children While Psychotic?

The trial that ended in a hung jury in Massachusetts on 4 September 2026 turned on a question every legal system must answer: when is a person too ill to be punished for a killing?

The law she was tried under

Massachusetts asks whether, because of a mental disease or defect, the accused lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform it to the law. The prosecution must prove criminal responsibility beyond reasonable doubt, and a jury of twelve must be unanimous. A person found not criminally responsible is committed to a state hospital and reviewed each year.

The offence in Papua New Guinea

A person who unlawfully kills another intending to cause death is guilty of wilful murder under section 299 of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2022 replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole. Strangling three children is on its face an intentional killing, so wilful murder is the charge. There is no jury; a National Court judge decides, so a hung jury cannot happen.

The defence: section 28

In Goi a father killed his infant son; a psychiatrist said organic brain syndrome, anger and fear had caused dissociation that impaired his ability to form a rational intention and control his actions. The Supreme Court held that impairment is not deprivation. Reduced capacity is diminished responsibility, which the Code does not recognise, and the conviction stood.

That is the hinge. A command hallucination directing the killing, if the judge accepted the evidence, could establish deprivation of the capacity to know she ought not to act or to control herself. Depression and despair without psychosis is the Goi situation: a disturbed mind, not a deprived one, and a conviction.

Infanticide, and its limit

Under section 301, a woman who by a wilful act kills her child under twelve months while the balance of her mind is disturbed by the effects of childbirth or lactation is guilty of infanticide, punished as manslaughter, and may be convicted of it on a wilful murder indictment.

Fitness, verdict and custody

Under section 569 the court must first inquire whether she can understand the proceedings. If the defence succeeds, section 592 requires a specific finding that she was of unsound mind and is acquitted on that account. She is not released. The court must order strict custody pending a decision by the Head of State on the advice of the National Executive Council, who may later release her with or without conditions. The Mental Health Act 2015 calls her a forensic patient, and Part V governs her custody, review and discharge. Release turns on an executive decision, not an annual court review.

Sentence if convicted

Wilful murder is sentenced under Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789. Multiple killings and defenceless child victims fall in the highest categories, where the guideline is life; in The State v Hapot (No 2) (2016) N6452 the killing of two children with their mother was treated as deserving the maximum. Mental illness short of section 28 mitigates under Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC1017, but the Code offers no middle verdict.

What the comparison shows

Papua New Guinea’s law asks for deprivation, not impairment; puts the burden on the accused; has no diminished responsibility; and confines the special treatment of mothers to a child’s first year. Postpartum psychosis affects one or two women in every thousand births and can bring delusions and command hallucinations. Whether the courts here would treat it as a mental disease depriving capacity has not been decided in any reported case.