Defences Involving State Of Mind Flashcards
*** Legal insanity
Section 23 Crimes Act 1961
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.
Burden of Proof for insanity
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.
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.
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.
Automatism
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.
*** Automatism caused by
consumption of alcohol or drugs
Where automatism is brought about by a voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs the Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention.
Decisions of the courts indicate that cogent (convincing) evidence is
necessary to support it, and only in very rare cases will it be enough for a
person to say that they did not know or cannot remember what happened, or that they had a blackout.
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
*** Intoxication Defence
In the past intoxication was considered to be no defence to a criminal charge and, indeed, an aggravating rather than mitigating factor. 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 a lack of intent to commit
the offence - where the intoxication causes a state of automatism (complete acquittal).
Intoxication available as a
defence to any crime requiring intent
Intoxication can be used as a defence in New Zealand to any crime that requires intent. Any offence that does not require an intent is called a strict liability offence and the only way a defendant can escape liability for such an offence is to prove a total absence of fault.
Child ignorant of law
Where a child does not know their act was contrary to law, they will not be liable for any offence (s22 Crimes Act 1961).
Outline section 25 of the Crimes Act 1961, ignorance of the law:
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.
How do the NZ Courts deal with a defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol or drugs?
In New Zealand, the courts are likely to steer a middle course, allowing a defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol and drugs, to offences of basic intent only. They are likely to disallow the defence where the state of mind is obviously self-induced, the person is blameworthy, and the consequences could have been expected.
