The case of a two-year-old girl found alive inside a suitcase on a bus has taken a dramatic turn, with the accused woman, aged 27 from Northland, now seeking to use the insanity defense. This development has sparked significant attention and raises questions about mental health defenses in criminal cases. But here’s where it gets controversial—many wonder whether claiming insanity is a genuine plea or an attempt to dodge responsibility.
During today’s proceedings at the Auckland District Court, the woman’s legal representative, Kate Goodman-Creed, confirmed that she has arranged for a psychiatric assessment. This report will be submitted to the Crown, which will then decide whether to conduct its own evaluation. The purpose of this process is to determine if the woman might be legally considered not responsible for her actions due to mental illness, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act. This law allows a court to establish that a person committed an act but was not mentally capable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their conduct.
A jury trial has been scheduled for next June, should the court decide it is necessary to proceed that way. The charges against the woman include neglect and ill treatment, stemming from an incident in August when a bus driver made the shocking discovery during a scheduled stop in Kaiwaka. The driver noticed a bag that was moving and, upon opening it, found the two-year-old girl inside. The girl was immediately taken to hospital for treatment.
Authorities have alleged that the child was in grave danger, facing serious health risks such as suffocation, exposure to carbon monoxide, and lasting psychological trauma. The woman remains on bail and has been granted permanent suppression of her name, a common legal measure to protect the identity of individuals involved in sensitive cases.
And this is the part most people miss—while the insanity defense can be a valid legal strategy in some circumstances, it also sparks debate about mental health and accountability. Do such defenses undermine personal responsibility, or are they necessary to ensure justice for those genuinely unable to comprehend their actions? What’s your take? Should mental health always be a central factor in criminal cases, or is it sometimes used as a loophole? Share your thoughts below.
