6. Defences Involving State of Mind

Question 1

What is the definition of insanity

s23

Answer 1

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

Question 2

What can a judge do, under s34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, when someone is convicted for an imprisonable offence

Answer 2

May still 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 act

Question 3

What can occur when there is strong evidence of insanity

Answer 3

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

Judge must direct the jury’s attention to it

Question 4

What is the burden of proof for insanity

Answer 4

It must be proved to the jury on the balance of probabilities by the defence that the defendant was insane

Question 5

R v Cottle

Answer 5

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 6

R v Clark

Answer 6

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

Question 7

What are M’Naughten’s rules regarding establishing whether someone was insane

Answer 7

They are based on the persons ability to think rationally

If a person is insane they do not know:

• the nature and quality of their actions
• that what they were doing was wrong

Question 8

What is the definition of a disease of the mind

Answer 8

A term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense

Question 9

What is held regarding temporary mental disorders

Answer 9

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
• anaesthetic
• hypnotism

Question 10

R v Codere

Answer 10

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

Question 11

What is the definition of “Automatism”

Answer 11

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, brain tumour consumption of alcohol or drugs

Question 12

R v Cottle

Answer 12

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 13

What is held regarding culpability for automatism

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Where automatism is brought about by a voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs the court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or the offender lacked intention.

What evidence must be give to support a defence in this instance

Answer 14

Convincing evidence is necessary to support it and only in very rare cases will it be enough for a person to say that they cannot remember what happened or that they blacked out

Question 15

What are the two types of automatism

Answer 15

Sane automatism - sleepwalking, blow to the head, effects of drugs

Insane automatism - mental disease

Question 16

How do the courts deal with a defence of automatism rising out of taking alcohol or drugs

Answer 16

Allowing a defence of automatism arising out of taking drugs or alcohol for basic intent offences only IF THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENCE CAN CLEARLY RAISE THE ISSUE

Likely to disallow the defence where the state of mind is self induced and the person is blame worthy

Question 17

What is a strict liability offence a provide an example

Answer 17

An offence that does not require an intent. Only way to escape liability is to prove a total absence of fault

eg. drink driving

Question 18

The general rule is that intoxication may be a defence in what 3 circumstances

Answer 18

• intoxication causes a disease of the mind (insanity)
• if intent is required as an essential element of the offence and drunkenness is such that the defence can plead a lack of intent
• intoxication causes a state of automatism

Question 19

Is ignorance of the law a defence

s25

Answer 19

No

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

Question 20

A question of law relating to whether the condition is a disease of the mind is decided by who

Answer 20

Judge

Question 21

What the accused state of mind was at the time of the offence is question decided by who

Answer 21

Jury

Question 22

What was held in R v Lipman

Answer 22

Where automatism is bought about by a voluntary intake of drugs/alcohol the court maybe reluctant to accept that actions were involuntary or lacked intention

Question 23

What was held in R v Kamipeli

Answer 23

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