Defences Involving State of Mind Flashcards
Legislation - Insanity s23(2)
(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.
Case law - R v Cottle
What is the case law regarding the burden of proof for insanity?
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.
What is the standard of proof needed to prove a defence of insanity to the satisfaction of the jury?
The balance of probabilities.
Case law - R v Clark
What is the case law regarding medical evidence of insanity?
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.
Outline M’Naughten’s Rules?
M’Naughten’s rules are frequently used to establish whether or not a defendant is insane, based on their ability to think rationally.
It considers that that they didn’t know:
• The nature and quality of their actions, or
• That what they were doing was wrong.
Definition - Disease of the mind
A term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense.
Note: Disease of the mind is not a medical question but a legal one - Answered by the Judge.
What is held regarding temporary mental disorders?
Disease of the mind doesn’t include a temporary mental disorder
caused by some factor external to the defendant, such as a blow to the head, alcohol, drugs or hypnotism.
Case law - R v Codere
What is the case law regarding nature and quality of an act?
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act.
The phrase doesn’t involve any consideration of the accused’s moral perception or his knowledge of the moral quality of the act.
Definition - Automatism
A state of total blackout, where a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.
Case law - R v Cottle
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterward of having done it.
A temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.
What is held regarding culpability for automatism?
Actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common law rule is that there’s no criminal culpability for such conduct.
What are the two types of automatism?
Sane automatism - the result of sleepwalking, a blow to the head or the effects of drugs.
Insane automatism - the result of a mental disease.
General rule - Intoxication?
Intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:
- Where intoxication causes a disease of the mind, bringing insanity (s23) into effect.
- Where intoxication causes a state of automatism (complete acquittal.)
- If intent is required as an essential element of the offence, and the drunkenness is such that the defence can plead a lack of intent to commit the offence.
What is needed for intoxication to succeed as a defence?
All you need to establish is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s required state of mind at the time of the offence.
You don’t have to show that the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, only that, because of their drunken state, they didn’t have the proper state of mind to be guilty - R v Kamipeli
Is intoxication available as a defence to any crime requiring intent?
Intoxication can be used as a defence in NZ to any crime that requires intent.
Any offence that doesn’t require an intent is called a strict liability offence and the only way a defendant can escape liability is to prove a total absence of fault.
