6. Defences Involving State of Mind Flashcards
Insanity
Section 23
1) Everyone shall be presumed sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved
2) No person shall be committed of an offence by reason of an act or omission when under natural imbecility or disease of the mind that renders them incapable of:
a) Understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission
b) Knowing that act of omission was morally wrong
3) Insanity before or after the act or omission and any delusions though only partial may be evidence of the offender mind at the time irresponsible of the act or omission
Who raises the issue of insanity?
R v Green
- Defence is responsible to raise the matter of insanity
- Prosecution is not allowed to adduce evidence of insanity
What does the crown do with evidence of insanity?
Give it to defence and up to them to plea for insanity
What happens when an insane person has committed an imprisonable offence?
Judge may commit the person to hospital or secure facility or mandatory treatment as a patient under the Mental Health Act 1992
What if there is strong evidence of insanity but no insane plea by defence?
The defendant may still be acquitted if there is strong evidence to indicate offence did occur and at the time the defendant was insane.
The judge must advise the jury of insanity and it is up to jury to decide if acquitted due to insanity or innocence.
Burden of proof for insanity
Defence to prove insanity as a defence
Burden of proof for insanity not as high as a prosecution
Proof can be balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt (R v COTTLE)
What happen if defence can not prove insanity but the jury thinks that the defendant is insane
Defendant can be acquitted due to insanity
R v COTTLE
[Not ill - degree of proof]
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the jury is satisfied with the plea on a preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt
Who addresses if the defendant is legally insane?
Medical experts
Ties in with R v CLARK
R v CLARK
[Clarke - supervisor - not always agree]
The jury decides if the accused is insane and a different verdict to the medical evidence is not unreasonable.
But where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts, a jurys 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.
What is M’Naghtens Rules
Used to establish if the defendant is insane
What is M’Naghtens rules based of?
Based on the persons ability to think rationally, so if that person is insane then they have a disease of the mind whereby they did not know that:
- the nature and quality of their actions
- what they were doing is wrong
Does the mind need physical damage?
No, the law is ‘mind - mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding’. it can be permanent, temporary and of short or long duration, curable or incurable
Does disease of the mind include temporary mental disorder?
No, does not include things like a blow to the head, drugs or alcohol
Who makes the final decision whether a condition is the disease of the mind?
Even if medical witnesses give their evidence the final decision is made by the judge
Nature and quality of the act
Only deals with the physical side of the conduct.
Not seperated to determine the physical ad moral conduct
R v CODERE
