Defences Involving State of Mind Flashcards
Insanity
Section 23 CA61
s23 Insanity
(1) Every one shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing any act until the contrary is proved.
(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act or omission by him when labouring under [natural imbecility or disease of the mind] to such [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 is [morally wrong], having regard to the [common accepted standards of right and wrong].
(3) Insanity before or after the time when he did or omitted the act, and insane delusions, though only partial, [may be evidence] that the offender was, at the time when he did or omitted the act, [in such a condition of mind as to render him irresponsible for the act or omission].
Proof for Insanity
R v Cottle
R v Cottle
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if insanity is established to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
_____
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.
Decision as to Accused’s Insanity
R v Clark
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 jury’s verdict must be found on that evidence, which in this case shows that the accused did not to know that his act was morally wrong.
M’Naghten’s Rules
M’Naghten’s Rules are 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 a disease of mind that they did not know]:
- The nature and quality of their actions, or
- That what they were doing was wrong.
Disease of the Mind
A term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense.
State of Mind
- Physical damage not necessary
- Temporary mental disorder not included (drugs, alcohol, hypnotism)
- A question of law rather than a question of medicine.
_____
Prosecution have a duty to raise the issue of insanity where the defendant poses a risk to community.
Nature and Quality of the Act
R v Codere
R v Codere
The nature and quality of the act [means the physical character of the act]. The phrase does not involve any consideration on the [accused’s moral perception] nor his [knowledge of moral quality] of the act. Thus a person who is so deluded that [he cuts a woman’s throat believing that he is cutting loaf of bread] would [not know the nature and quality of his act].
Automatism
Definition
R v Cottle
Best described as a total black out, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.
R v Cottle
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory of having done it - a temporary eclipse of the consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person affected able to exercise bodily movements.
Culpability
Actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common law rule is that there is no criminal liability for such conduct.
Causes of Automatism
- Concussion
- Sleepwalking
- Brain tumour
- Epilepsy
- Arteriosclerosis
- Alcohol and drugs (require convincing evidence to support it - one of the first refuges of a guilty conscience and a popular excuse).
Two Types of Automatism
Sane Automatism - Sleep walking, blow to the head, effects of drugs.
Insane Automatism - Result of mental disease.
Automatism
Note
Whether to treat automatism as insanity:
Depends on the presence or absence of a disease of the mind. (Criminal Procedure for Mentally Impaired Person)
_____
Successful plea of automatism negates intent and responsibility:
If the defendant produces sufficient evidence that intent was lacking because they were in an autonomous state, the they must be acquitted.
_____
Automatism Induced by Alcohol or Drugs:
It is a defence that is available if the evidence of the defence can clearly raise the issue. However it is complex and should not be confused with general defence of intoxication.
_____
Defence must establish a defence based on the balance of probabilities and will depend on whether the state of automatism is involuntary, self induced and whether intent is present.
Intoxication
The general rule has been that intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:
- Where intoxication causes a disease of the mind (s23 Insanity)
- 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 induces the state of automatism (complete acquittal)
Intoxication
Note
Crown must prove intent required:
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.
_____
Intoxication available as a defence to any crime requiring intent:
Offence that does not require an intent is called a strict liability offence. In defences requiring simple or basic intent, a defence of intoxication is unlikely to succeed but may be used by way of mitigation of penalty.
_____
Ignorance of the law while intoxicated is no defence.
Ignorance of Law
Section 25 CA61
s25 Ignorance of Law
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.
_____
A child who does not know their act was contrary to the law will not be liable for conviction to any offence.
