Defences Involving State of Mind Flashcards
Insanity
Definition
Legal insanity is defined in s23 of the 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.
Defence to raise issue of insanity
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.
Further, a judge may put the issue of insanity before the jury under s20(4) of
the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CP(MIP))
Act).
Practical implications
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.
Before making any of these orders, the court must be satisfied that the
offender’s mental impairment requires the compulsory treatment or compulsory
care of the offender either in the offender’s interest, or for reasons of public
safety.
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.
Early conclusion to trial
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
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.
During a trial in the District Court or High Court, the defendant may plead
insanity as a defence to any charge punishable by imprisonment. Insanity is a
legal question, not a medical one. 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.
R v Cottle [1958] NZLR 999 (CA)
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.
R v Clark [1983] 1 CRNZ 132
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.
