Expert report to determine mental competence of Harrison Kitt, accused of killing Joanne Shanahan and Tania McNeill in crash

He allegedly killed two people, including an SA Police officer, in a high-speed crash, but doctors will determine whether this young driver stands trial.

Harrison Kitt outside court. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Mariuz.

An expert psychiatric report will determine whether or not a young driver stands trial for killing two people – including an off-duty SA Police officer – in a high-speed crash.

Harrison Kitt, 20, of Urrbrae, appeared in the District Court on Friday and pleaded not guilty to two aggravated counts of causing death by dangerous driving.

He also denied a further count of causing serious harm by dangerous driving – all charges arise from a crash at Fullarton Rd and Cross Rd, Urrbrae, in April 2020.

SA Police Chief Superintendent Joanne Shanahan, 55, and Tania McNeill, 53, died as a result of the impact.

Superintendent Shanahan’s husband, Peter, sustained injuries.

Following Kitt’s arrest, his family and lawyers repeatedly asserted he had behaved in an alarming, uncharacteristic manner prior to the incident.

They further asserted he was experiencing a “manic episode or psychosis” at the time of the crash, and flagged his intent to plead not guilty to due mental incompetence.

On Friday, Kitt pleaded not guilty to all three charges – his barrister, David Edwardson QC, confirmed that was on the basis of mental incompetence.

He said defence counsel had obtained an expert report from Dr Paul Furst, head of the state’s forensic community mental health service, confirming that diagnosis.

Prosecutors said they had yet to decide whether they would challenge Dr Furst’s report, and asked the court to order a second expert opinion.

Judge Paul Muscat agreed, remanding Kitt on continuing bail until April.

Under state law, any person found to have been mentally incompetent, due to a medical condition or illness, at the time of an offence is deemed to be not guilty.

That person is then subject to a limiting term – or period under mental health supervision – equal to the jail sentence that would have otherwise applied.