Defences Involving State of Mind Flashcards
Define insanity - Section 23 Crimes Act 1961
- (1) Everyone 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 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.
What was held in R v Cottle (Burden of proof of insanity)
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfactions of the jury on a preponderance or probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
What is the burden of proof for insanity?
The accused is not required to prove the defence of insanity beyond reasonable doubt, but to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities.
Outline M’Naghten’s rules
The M’Nagthen’s rules is 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 the accused state of mind was at the time of the is a question decided by whom?
The jury
A question of law relating to whether the condition is a disease of the mind is answered by whom?
The Judge
Define 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.
What was held in R v Cottle (Automatism)
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 motions.
How may courts view voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs in relation to automatism
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.
What is sane and insane automatism
Automatism may be quite different and distinct from insanity, although it may be due to a disease of the mind. Hence it is necessary to distinguish between.
- Sane automatism - The result of somnambulism (sleep walking), a blow to the head or the effects of drugs.
- Insane automatism - The result of a mental disease
What is a “strict liability” offence?
- A strict liability offence is any offence that does not require an intent. The only way a defendant can escape liability for such an offence is to prove a total absence of fault.
- Example: Drive with Excess Breath Alcohol
How do New Zealand 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.
General rules regarding intoxication
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 Section 23 (insanity) of the Crimes Act 1961 into effect
- If intent is required as an essential element of the offence and drunkenness is such that the defence can plead lack of intent to commit the offence
- Where the intoxication causes a state of automatism
What was held in R v Kamipeli
It does not have to be shown that the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, merely that, because of their drunken state, they did not have the proper state of mind to be guilty.
As a general guideline, most offences within the Crimes Act 1961, will require an intent (Mens rea) of some kind. Outline a defence that would therefore be generally available.
The defence of intoxication will be available to the defence to establish that the defendant did not have the required intent to carry out the offence.
