Defences Involving State Of Mind Flashcards
Insanity - Defined:
S 23 Insanity CA 61
(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.
(3) Insanity before or after the time when he or she did or omitted the act, and insane delusions, though only partial, may be evidence that the offender was, at the time when he or she did or omitted the act, in such a condition of mind as to render him or her irresponsible for the act or omission.
(4) The fact that by virtue of this section any person has not been or is not liable to be convicted of an offence shall not affect the question whether any other person who is alleged to be a party to that offence is guilty of that offence.
How can prosecution raise the issue of insanity?
The right of the prosecution to raise the issue of insanity was seen as necessary to protect the public. Where the defendant poses a risk to the community, there is a procedure by which they can become subject of a restricted patient order under s54(1) MH Act 92
Practical implications of insanity:
- Not proper for the crown to call evidence of insanity
-Defence to raise the issue of insanity
-If the defence chooses not to plead insanity, it would be only an exceptional cases that the trial judge would put the issue to the jury.
The judge may still commit a person to a hospital or secure facility, instead of passing sentence in order that they be treated as a patient under mental health act 1992.
Insanity - Burden of proof
Lies with the Defence - so it is on the balance of probabilities.
Insanity: -burden of proof case law
R V Cottle
As to the 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 .
Decision of accused’s insanity - case law:
R V Clark:
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 juries verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case shows that they accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.
M’Naghten’s rules
Used it establish whether or not D D is insane.
It is based on the persons ability to think rationally, so that if a person is insane, they were under such a defect of reasoning from a disease of the mind and that they did not know :
-The nature and quality of their actions or
-That what they were doing was wrong
Disease of the mind
No precise definition - it can be said to be a term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental arrangement and the widest sense.
Does insanity include a temporary mental disorder?
No - it 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 anaesthetic.
S23 (2)(a) - nature and quality of the act. Case Law:
R V Codere:
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve any consideration of the accused 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’s cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.
Morally wrong 23(2)(b)
The test is that the defendant knew that the act were morally wrong-they do not need to know they were legally wrong.
In other words, they may acknowledge the result of society’s reasoning that their actions were morally wrong, but they are unable to go through the same reasoning process .
Consequences of insanity
S24 & S25 criminal procedure(mentally impaired persons) act 03
Maybe detained as a special patient or a special care recipient.
Public interest to obtain the offender may override other factors and a section 31, the Attorney General may direct that the defendant be held as a patient or care recipient.
Automatism - action without conscious volition- case law:
R V Cottle
Doing something without knowledge of it and without a memory afterwards of having done it-a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements .
Caused by consumption of alcohol or drugs
Where Automatism has brought upon by a voluntary intake, the court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention.
Only in very rare cases will there 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
1) Sane automatism (sleepwalking), a blow to the head, effect of drugs
2) Insane Automatism - result of mental disease
Offences - Criminal intent ( Automatism)
No intent required - eg during with excess breath alcohol. Therefore for a defence to succeed on this charge a person must prove a total absence of fault. In other words the person drove without conscious appreciation of the effect of driving or the fact of intoxication.
Intent required-
Any offence that has intent as an element of the offence. An example was assault which requires intent.
3 examples of intoxication as a defence:
- where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so as to bring S 23 into effect.
-If intent is required as an essential element of the offence and the drunkenness is such that the defence can complete a lack of intent to commit the offence
- weather intoxication causes a state of automatism
Intoxication - what crown must prove in relation to intent:
For intoxication to succeed as a defence, all that is needed to be established as reasonable doubt about the defendant required the state of mind at the time of the offence
It does not have to be shown they were incapable of forming the mens rea.
Intoxication can be used as a defence in New Zealand to any crime that:
Requires intent— this does not include strict liability offences, we’re all that needs to be proven as the act.
Where defence of intoxication is unlikely to succeed:
-Whether there is a simple intent element such as fighting in a public place or assault. (Unlikely a person thought they were fighting a lamppost)
-Strict liability offences
S25
25 Ignorance of law:
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him or her.
