6. Defences Involving State Of Mind

Question 1

Insanity : Burden of proof

Answer 1

Lies with the defence to prove insane as the law assumes that the defendant was sane.

Question 2

Insanity : R v Clark

Answer 2

Decision as to an accused insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessary unreasonable.

Where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence

The accused did not and has been unable to know that his act was morally wrong

Question 3

Disease of the mind does not include ?

Answer 3

temporary mental disorder caused by

some factor external to the defendant,

such as a blow to the head,
the absorption of drugs, or
an anaesthetic or hypnotism

Question 4

R v Codere - S23 Insanity

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Automatism defined

Answer 5

A state of blackout during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them

Question 6

In court regarding Automatism - Caused by consumption of alcohol or drugs

Answer 6

The court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention.

Courts indicate cogent evidence is necessary to support it.

Question 7

2 types of automatism

Answer 7

Sane : result of somnambulism, blow to the head of the effects of drugs

Insane : results of mental disease

Question 8

How is automatism (induced by drink or drugs) a defence New Zealand court ?

Answer 8

if evidence of the defence can clearly raise the issue.

Defendant has become an automaton by ingesting many drinks or so much alcohol, they are not responsible for their actions.

Question 9

Intoxication to succeed as defence a defence, defence must ? Outline case law

Answer 9

R v Kamipeli

Establish reasonable doubt about the defendants state of mind at the time of the offence.

Question 10

Intoxication available as a defence to any crime requiring intent unless

Answer 10

• Evidence a person formed the intent to commit the crime

• Then took drinks or drugs as part of the method of committing the crime

• This will disqualify a defence of drunkenness or automatism

Question 11

Intoxication as a defence unlikely to succeed

Answer 11

Raises reasonable doubt as to whether the offender had formed the requisite intent for the offence

Question 12

S25 - Ignorance of Law outlines

Answer 12

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

Ruling applies whether the offender is from this country or over seas.

Question 13

Application in New Zealand Court regarding Automatism ?

Answer 13

Allowing defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol and drugs to offences with basic intent.

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

Question 14

Outline s25 CA1961 - Ignorance of Law

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Ruling of s25 - Ignorance of Law

Answer 15

Applies whether the offender is from this country or not

Question 16

A defence of automatism depends ?

Answer 16

Whether the state of automatism is involuntary or self-induced and whether intent is present