Defences involving State of Mind Flashcards
What is the legal definition of insanity?
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.
Prosecution raising the issue of insanity consequences
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.
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.
Practical implications of crown not being able to give insanity evidence?
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.
If the defence chooses not to plead insanity, it would be in only exceptional cases that the trial judge would put the issue to the jury. 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.
What happens where there is strong evidence of insanity
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.
As noted above, 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. The judge must do this even if the defence has not put forward the issue of insanity. In such a situation the judge, in summing up before the jury deliberates its verdict, must notify the jury that if it decides to acquit the defendant it must be specific as to whether this is on the grounds of the defendant’s innocence or their insanity.
Can a trial end early for mental health proceedings?
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.
Burden of proof for insanity defence?
Because in most cases the defence pleads insanity and because the law assumes that the defendant is sane, it is up to the defence to prove that the defendant is insane. As in all cases where the burden of proof is on the defendant, the standard of proof required is not as high as that demanded of the prosecution. 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.
Background of M’Naghten’s Rules
The M’Naghten rules were a reaction to the acquittal of Daniel McNaughton, who was charged with the attempted assassination of the British Prime Minister, Robert Peel, in 1843. M’Naghten fired a pistol at the back of Peel’s secretary, Edward Drummond, who died five days later.
The House of Lords asked a panel of judges, a series of hypothetical questions about the defence of insanity. The principles expounded by this panel have come to be known as the M’Naghten Rules.
what are the M’Naghten’s Rules?
The M’Naghten’s rules are frequently used to establish whether or not a defendant is insane. It is based on the person’s ability to think rationally, so that 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.
What is disease of the mind?
The Courts have not attempted a precise or comprehensive definition of the term “a disease of the mind”. It has been said to be “a term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense”
Is physical damage of the brain required for disease of the mind?
A condition may be a disease of the mind whether or not there is any damage to the brain or other physical organ, the law being concerned with the “mind” — the mental faculties of reason, memory, and understanding; and the disorder may be permanent or temporary, of short or long duration, curable or incurable.
What is not included in disease of the mind?
“Disease of the mind” does not include a temporary mental disorder caused by some factor external to the defendant, such as a blow on the head, the absorption of drugs, alcohol, or an anaesthetic, or hypnotism.
Is disease of the mind a question of law or medical?
In practice, medical witnesses are permitted to say whether they regard a disorder as a “disease of the mind”, as well as testifying as to the causes and symptoms of the condition diagnosed, but such a classification by medical witnesses is not final, and whether the particular condition is a disease of the mind is a question of law for the Judge.
Disease of the mind is not a medical question but a legal one.
Nature and quality of the act meaning
Under s23(2)(a) the defence is established if mental disease rendered the defendant “incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission”.
The words “nature and quality” are to be read as a composite expression dealing only with the physical character of the conduct, and not as separate terms distinguishing its physical and moral aspects.
Morally wrong meaning
The test is that the defendant knew that their acts were morally wrong – they do not need to know that they were legally wrong. If someone cannot understand that their act is morally wrong, then they lack rational understanding.
In other words, they may acknowledge the result of society’s reasoning – that their actions are morally wrong – but they are unable to go through the reasoning process themselves.
What are the consequences of being mentally impaired?
Under s24 and s25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, someone found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity may be detained as a special patient or special care recipient.
