5. Defences involving state of mind Flashcards
What is the legislation regarding insanity, s23?
- No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable:
- Of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission
- Of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
What can a judge do, under s34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, when someone is convicted for an imprisonable offence?
the judge may commit a person to a hospital or secure facility or, instead of passing sentence, order that the offender be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.
What can occur when there is strong evidence of insanity?
a person can be acquitted of a charge, even if they have not put up the defence of insanity, if there is strong evidence to indicate that the defendant did commit the alleged offence but was insane at the time.
What is the burden of proof for insanity?
it is up to the defence to prove that the defendant was insane. If the defence cannot prove that the defendant was insane, but the jury thinks that it is more likely that the defendant is insane, then the defendant is entitled to an acquittal on the grounds of insanity.
What is the case law regarding burden of proof?
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
(R v Cottle)
What is the case law regarding medical evidence of insanity?
The decision as to an accused’s insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily unreasonable. But where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.
(R v Clark)
What are M’Naughten’s rules regarding establishing whether someone was insane?
They are based on the persons ability to think rationally. If a person is insane they do not know:
1) the nature and quality of their actions, or
2) that what they were doing was wrong.
What is the definition of a disease of the mind?
a term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense
What is held regarding temporary mental disorders?
a “disease of the mind” does not include a temporary mental disorder caused by some factor external to the defendant, such as a blow to the head, drugs, alcohol, etc.
What is the case law regarding the nature and quality of an act?
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve any consideration of the accused’s moral perception nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act. Thus a person who is so deluded that he cuts a woman’s throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.
(R v Codere)
How can automatism be defined?
as a state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them e.g. concussion, sleepwalking, epilepsy, consumption of alcohol or drugs.
What is the case law for automatism?
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it – a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.
(R v Cottle)
What is held regarding culpability for automatism?
actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common law rule is that there is no criminal liability for such conduct i.e. the the automatism negates intent as well as responsibility for the actus reus.
What is needed for intoxication to succeed as a defence?
establish reasonable doubt about the defendants state of mind at the time of the offence. It does not have to be shown that the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, merely that, because of their drunken state, they did not have the proper state of mind to be guilty.
What is the legislation for ignorance of law, s25?
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.
