6. Defences involving state of mind

Question 1

Section 23 - Insanity

1. Presumed…
2. No person shall, natural imbecility or disease
   a N n Q
   b K M W
3. Before or after, render irresponsable

Answer 1

(1) Every one shall be presumed to be sane at the time of any act until the contrary is proved.

(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of act/omission when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable—

(a) Of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or

(b) Of knowing the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to accepted standards of right and wrong.

(3) Insanity before or after the time of offence and insane delusions, may be evidence that the offender was, at the time in such a condition of mind as to render him irresponsible.

Question 2

Burden of proof for Insanity - R v Cottle

PPKM

Answer 2

R v Cottle
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.

Question 3

Insanity is a legal question, not a medical one. However, the questions if defendant is legally insane is usually addressed by evidence from medical experts called by defence and crown.

What is held in R v Clark

Michael Clarks Insane Decisions

Answer 3

R v Clark
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.

Question 4

The M’Naghten’s rules are frequently used to establish whether or not a defendant is insane. Explain and outline “M’Naghten’s rules”

Answer 4

It is based on the person’s ability to think rationally, so that if a person is insane they were acting under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind that they did not know:
* the nature and quality of their actions, or
* that what they were doing was wrong.

Question 5

Discuss disease of the mind:

3points

Answer 5

• Physical Damage to the brain isnt necessary
• Doesnt include temporary mental disorders (alcohol, blow to the head)
• whether condition is a disease of the mind is a question of law for the Judge.

Question 6

What does R v Codere state about the nature and quality of the act

Cody Rhodes

Answer 6

R v Codere
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act.

Does not involve any consideration of 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.

Question 7

Automatism can best be described as?

Outline R v Cottle

PPKM

Answer 7

Automatism- a state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.

R v Cottle
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.

Question 8

Outline and define the two types of automatism

Answer 8

Sane automatism - the result of (sleepwalking), a blow to the head or the effects of drugs

Insane automatism - the result of a mental disease.

Question 9

What is a “strict liability” offence?

Answer 9

Any offence that does not require an intent. The only way a defendant can escape liability for such an offence is to prove a total absence of fault.

Question 10

Defence of automatism in NZ courts

Answer 10

In New Zealand, the courts allow a defence of automatism if the evidence is sufficiently strong to support the defence.

Likely to disallow the defence where the state of mind is obviously self-induced, the person is blameworthy, and consequences could have been expected.

Question 11

The general rule has been that intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:

3 points

Answer 11

• Where intoxication causes a disease of the mind so as to bring s23 (Insanity) into effect
• if intent is required and the drunkenness is such that the defence can plead a lack of intent.
• where the intoxication causes a state of automatism (complete acquittal).

Question 12

Ignorance of law -
S25?

Answer 12

The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.