Defences involving State of Mind Flashcards
Definition – Insanity
S23(2) – No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when laboring 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 cat or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong
R v Cottle - (Burden of Proof)
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 - (Burden of Proof)
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.
Burden of proof
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 inside is usually addressed by evidence form medical experts called by defence and crown.
“M’Naghten’s rules”
The M’Naghten’s rules (or test) 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.
A Question of Law relating to whether the condition is a disease of the mind is answered by whom?
The Judge. It is not a medical one, it is a legal one.
R v Codere - (Nature and Quality of the Act)
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.
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 movements.
Culpability – Automatism
Actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common law rule is that there is no criminal liability for such conduct.
Automatism caused by 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.
Two types of 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 (sleepwalking), a blow to the head or the effects of drugs
• Insane automatism - The result of a mental disease.
Defence on the balance of probabilities - “strict liability” offence
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. Example: Driving with Excess breath alcohol. Mens rea does not need to be proved by the prosecution, the defence must establish a defence on the balance of probabilities.
Criminal intent
Certain offences require intent and others require little or no intent.
No intent required – Driving with excess breath alcohol. A defence to succeed on this cahge a person must prove a total absence of fault. In other words, the person drove without conscious appreciation of the fact of driving, or of the fact of intoxication.
Intent required – Any offence that has intent as an element of the offence, such as assault.
Application in NZ Courts
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.
Intoxication - General Rule
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).
