Defences Involving State of Mind

Question 1

Insanity - 23(1) - Every one shall be presumed sane

Answer 1

(1) Every one shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved.

Question 2

Insanity - 23(2) - No person shall be convicted

Answer 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.

Question 3

Insanity - 23(3) - Evidence of insanity

Answer 3

(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.

Question 4

What part of legislation addresses the issue of the defendant posing a risk to the community by reason of their mental health?

Answer 4

S54 Mental Health Act - restricted patient order

Question 5

What was held in R v Green regarding the issue of insanity?

Answer 5

That insanity is a matter for the defence to raise and the prosecution is prohibited from adducing evidence of insanity.

Question 6

For what two reasons may the Court make an order for the defendant to be treated as a patient under the Mental Health Act?

Answer 6

1. That it is in the offender’s interest
2. For reasons of public safety.

Question 7

Can the Crown call evidence of insanity?

Answer 7

No. Instead any relevant evidence of insanity should be offered to the defence, leaving it to the defendant to put up the plea of insanity if they wish to do so.

Question 8

What is the standard of proof required to show that a defendant is insane?

Answer 8

Balance of probabilities.

Question 9

R v Cottle
Burden of proof for insanity

Answer 9

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 10

Insanity - Medical or legal question?

Answer 10

Legal. However, the question of whether or not the defendant is legally insane is usually addressed by evidence from medical experts called by defence and Crown.

Question 11

BAAAH

Examples of temporary mental disorders not included

Answer 11

Some factor external to the defendant such as:

• a Blow on the head
• the Absorption of drugs
• Alcohol
• an Anaesthetic
• Hypnotism.

Question 12

R v Clark

The decision as to an accused’s insanity

Answer 12

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 13

M’Naghten’s Rules

If a person is insane

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Disease of the mind

Answer 14

• Defies precise definition
• Can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense.

Question 15

Physical damage not necessary

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

R v Codere

Nature and quality of the act

Answer 16

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 17

Automatism - Definition

Answer 17

A state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.

Question 18

R v Cottle - Action without conscious volition

Answer 18

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 19

Automatism examples

Answer 19

• An act done whilst suffering from concussion
• Sleepwalking

Question 20

BEAC

Automatism causes

Answer 20

• Brain tumor
• Epliepsy
• Arteriosclerosis
• Consumption of alcohol or drugs

Question 21

Two types of automatism

Answer 21

Sane automatism - somnambulism (sleepwalking), a blow to the head or the effects of drugs

Insane automatism - mental disease

Question 22

What does a successful plea of automatism negate?

Answer 22

Intent as well as responsibility for the actus reus, and the result is an unqualified acquittal.

Question 23

Automatism induced by drink or drugs

Answer 23

In these circumstances the Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention.

Question 24

Intoxication

The general rule that intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:

Answer 24

• where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so as to bring S23 (insanity) into effect
• 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
• where the intoxication causes a state of automatism (complete acquittal).

Question 25

For intoxication to succeed as a defence, what does the defence have to prove?

Answer 25

That the defendant did not have the proper state of mind to be guilty.

Question 26

What is a strict liability offence?

Answer 26

Any offence that does not require intent, only the act eg, drink driving

Question 27

How can a defendant escape liability for a strict liability offence?

Answer 27

By proving a total absence of fault.

Question 28

Ignorance of law

Answer 28

CA61; S25

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

Question 29

What is the likely result of a trial where the defendant is found to have been in a state of automatism from intoxication?

Answer 29

Complete acquittal

Question 30

Temporary mental disorder not included

Answer 30

“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.

Question 31

Although a defence of intoxication is unlikely to succeed, how else may it be used in Court proceedings?

Answer 31

It may be used by way of mitigation of penalty