Defences involving State of Mind

Question 1

Sec 23 - Insanity
(Legislation)

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

(2)
No person shall
be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him or her
when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind
to such an extent as to render him or her 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 2

Who does the burden of proof lie with for a defence of insanity?

Answer 2

The defence
Need only be proved on the balance of probabilities

Question 3

R v Cottle (Insanity)

Answer 3

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 4

R v Clark (Insanity)

Answer 4

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 5

What is M’Naghten’s test based on?

Answer 5

M’Naghtens test is frequently used to establish whether or not a def is insane.

It is based on the rationality of the defendant and depends on whether the person was
suffering from a disease of the mind that they did not know:

• the nature and quality of their actions
• that what they were doing was wrong

Question 6

Define disease of the mind

Answer 6

No precise or comprehensive definition

A term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense

Question 7

Does disease of the mind include a temporary mental disorder?

Answer 7

No
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, anaesthetic, hypnotism

Question 8

Is physical damage necessary for a condition to be a disease on the mind?

Answer 8

No
A condition may be a disease on the mind whether or not there is damage to the brain or other physical organ concerned with the mind

R v cottle accepted that epilepsy, although physical, could amount to a disease of the mind

Question 9

Whether the particular condition is a disease of the mind is a question of law for who?

Answer 9

The judge

Question 10

R v Codere

(nature and quality of the act)

Answer 10

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 11

Under the Criminal Procedure Act, a person found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of their insanity may:

Answer 11

Be detained as a special patient or special care recipient

Question 12

Define Automatism

Answer 12

Best described as a state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them

Question 13

R v Cottle (Automatism)

Answer 13

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 14

What is the culpability for automatism?

Answer 14

There is no criminal liability

Actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary

Question 15

What causes automatism?

Answer 15

• concussion
• sleepwalking
• brain tumour
• epilepsy
• arteriosclerosis
• composition of alcohol and drugs

Question 16

Will the court accept automatism brought about by the intake of alcohol or drugs?

Answer 16

Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or the offender lacked intention

Convincing evidence is necessary

And Only in very rare cases will it be enough for a person to say they did not know or cannot remember or they had a blackout

Question 17

What are the two types of automatism?

Answer 17

• Sane automatism
  The result of sleepwalking, a blow to the head or effects of drugs
• Insane automatism
  The result of a mental disease

Question 18

Define strict liability offence

Answer 18

No mens rea need be proved by the prosecution

Question 19

Example of strict liability offences?

Answer 19

Driving with excess breath alcohol

Question 20

What is required for defence to succeed on a strict liability offence?

Answer 20

For defence to succeed on this charge a person must prove total absence of fault.

“The person drove without conscious appreciation of the fact of driving, or of the fact of intoxication”

Question 21

Is it possible to raise a defence of automatism for a strict liability offence?

Answer 21

Yes
However, because it is a strict liability offence, the defence must establish a defence to the balance of probabilities

Question 22

Intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:

Answer 22

• where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so as to bring 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

Question 23

What needs to be established for intoxication to succeed as a defence?

Answer 23

All you need to establish is reasonable doubt about the defendants required state of mind at the time of the offence

Question 24

Can intoxication be used to try establish ignorance of the law?

Answer 24

No
It will not establish a defence

Question 25

Sec 25 - Ignorance of the law

Answer 25

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

Question 26

What offences can a defence of intoxication be used?

Answer 26

Any offence that requires intent

However, in offences requiring simple or basic intent a defence of intoxication is unlikely to succeed but may be used by way of mitigation of penalty

Question 27

What is the standard of proof required to prove the defence of insanity to the satisfaction of the jury?

Answer 27

On the balance of probability

Question 28

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

Answer 28

Complete acquittal