Medicolegal aspects of non-rapid eye movement parasomnias

Abstract

In a subset of adults with non-rapid eye movement (NREM) parasomnias, clinical variants might be violent in nature and can potentially result in unintentional but considerable harm. As such, there is substantial interest on the forensic ramifications of these sleep behaviours. This review examined the diagnostic criteria for parasomnias established in the context of international classification systems; medicolegal case reports; legal frameworks; and court cases in and outside of Singapore, to provide an overview of the implications of NREM parasomnias. Violent or injurious behaviours that occurred in the context of somnambulism, otherwise known as sleepwalking, have challenged traditional legal theories of criminal culpability. Yet little has changed in the application of sleep science to criminal responsibility. In Singapore, the defence of somnambulism has hitherto not been directly raised. Nonetheless, sleep medicine practitioners may increasingly be requested to render their opinions on legal issues pertaining to violent or injurious behaviours allegedly arising during sleep. Although the understanding of NREM parasomnias has improved, there is still a dearth of evidence to support both medical and legal decisions in this area. NREM parasomnias come with disquieting legal and forensic implications for adjudicating criminal responsibility. There is a need to critically examine legal perspectives on behaviours occurring during sleep. More reliable empirical studies investigating the pathophysiology of NREM parasomnias can offer clearer diagnostic guidelines and address complex behaviours of NREM that often come with medicolegal implications.