Defences involving state of mind Flashcards
Insanity
Section 23, CA61
Insanity
Definition
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 him when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent to render him incapable
a. of understanding the nature of the act /omis
b. knowing the act/omis was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong
What was held in R v Green
Insanity is a matter for the defense 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
Burden of proof
Up to the defense to prove that the defendant is insane
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
Defendant not required to prove..
insanity beyond reasonable doubt, BUT too the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities
McNaghtens rules
The nature and quality of their actions was wrong
That what they were doing was wrong
Physical damage not necessary..
Mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding and the disorder may be permanent or temporary, of short or long duration curable or incurable
Disease of the mind does not include
Temporary mental disorder caused by some factor external to the defendant, such as a blow to the head, drugs, anesthetic or alcohol
Disease of the mind is a question..
Legal question not a medical one
23(2)(a)
Defense must establish if mental disease rendered the defendant ‘incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act / omis’
Morally wrong
The test is that the defendant knew that their acts were morally wrong - they do not need to know that they were legally wrong
