6. Defences Involving State of Mind - Insanity Flashcards
Outline the legal defence of insanity in section 23?
23 Insanity
(1) Every one shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved.
(2) 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—
(a) Of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or
(b) Of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the
commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
(3) Insanity before or after the time when he did or omitted the act, and insane delusions,
though only partial, may be evidence that the offender was, at the time when he did
or omitted the act, in such a condition of mind as to render him irresponsible for the
act or omission.
Defence is to raise the issue of insanity, why is this?
The right of the prosecution to raise the issue of insanity was seen as necessary to protect the public. However, legislation now addresses this issue. Where the defendant poses a risk to the community, there is a
procedure by which they can become the subject of a “restricted patient” order under s54(1) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and
Treatment) Act 1992.
In relation to raising the issue of insanity what did the court hold in R v Green?
The Court in R v Green23 held that insanity is a matter for the defence to raise and the prosecution is prohibited from adducing evidence of insanity
even if the accused has sought acquittal because of some state of mind not amounting to insanity.
What are the practical implications of the prosecution not introducing evidence of insanity?
It is not proper for the Crown to call evidence of insanity, but any relevant evidence in the hands of the Crown should be offered to the defence, leaving it to the defendant to put up the plea of insanity if they wish to do so.
What might the judge do when a person convicted of an imprisonable offence is mentally impaired?
When convicted of
an imprisonable offence, s34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, states that the judge 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 (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or be cared for as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act
2003.
Where there is strong evidence of insanity, but it is not used as a defence what can happen?
A person can be acquitted of a charge, even if they or their counsel 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.
Section 20(4) of the CP(MIP) Act provides that, where such
evidence exists, the judge must direct the jury’s attention to the defence of
insanity as set out in s23 of the Crimes Act 1961.
What is achieved under s20 CP(MIP)A and how is it achieved?
Section 20 of the CP(MIP) Act allows the case to be concluded more quickly than was previously the case as prior to the inception of this legislation, a full jury trial was required Under s20(2), there is now the possibility of entering the verdict of “not guilty on account of insanity” by consent.
In relation to burden of proof, what was held in R v Cottle?
Must Know Case Law
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.
In relation to burden of proof, where is the defendant entitled to an acquittal?
If the defence cannot prove that the defendant is 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 implication of R v Cottle?
Thus, the defendant is not required to prove the defence of insanity beyond reasonable doubt, but to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities.
The question of whether or not the defendant is legally insane is usually addressed by evidence from medical experts. What did the court say in R v Clark?
Must Know Case Law
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.
