Defences Involving State of Mind Flashcards
Legal Insanity
Crimes Act 1961
Section 23
(1) Everyone 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.
If Defence does not plead insanity . .
When convicted of an imprisonable offence, s34 of Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Person) Act 2003, states the Judge may still. .
- commit the person to a hospital or secure facility
or - instead of passing sentence, order that the offender be treated as a patient under 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.
R v Cottle
As to the 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.
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 which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.
M’Naghten’s Rules
It is based on the person’s ability to think rationally, 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.
R v Codere
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.
Automatism Definition
Automatism can best be described as 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.
Automatism caused by consumption of alcohol or drugs
Where automatism is brought about by the voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs the Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention.
-Cogent (convincing) evidence is necessary to support this defence.
Intoxication General Rule:
The general rule has been that intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:
- where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so as to bring s23 (insanity) of the Crimes Act 1961 into effect
- If intent is required as an essential element of the offence and the drunkenness is such that the defence can plead lack of intent to commit the offence
- where the intoxication causes a state of automatism (complete acquittal)
Intoxication defence
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.
The Crown must prove the intent required by the crime alleged.
Establish lack of intent
Intoxication can be used as a defence in NZ to any crime that requires intent.
The defence of intoxication will be available to the defence to establish that the defendant did not have the requisite intent (mens rea) to carry out the offence.
