Defences involving state of mind Flashcards
Insanity: Act/Section
S23 CA61
(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 when labouring 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 act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
What was held in R v GREEN?
Insanity is an issue for defence to raise and prosecution is prohibited from adducing evidence of insanity
What can be done under Sec20(2) Criminal procedure (MIP) Act 2003?
Allows case to be concluded without jury trial by entering a plea of ‘not guilty on account of insanity’ by consent.
Who has the Burden of proof where defence is one of insanity?
Burden of proof lies with defence to prove the defendant was insane at the time.
This must be proved on the balance of probabilities. (R V COTTLE)
Is insanity a legal or medical question?
Insanity is a legal question.
However the question if they are legally insane is often addressed by evidence from medical experts. (R v CLARKE)
what are the M’NAGHTENS rules
Used to establish if 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.
What is disease of the mind?
What does it not include
It is not precisely defined and can cover a wide variety of derangement.
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 an anaesthetic, or hypnotism.
Physical damage to the brain is not required - the law is concerned with the ‘mind’
Does defendant need to know if his acts were legally wrong or morally wrong?
Must know acts were morally wrong - they do not need to know it was legally wrong.
R V Clarke and R v Codere
what is automatism?
A state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.
what are the two types of automatism?
Sane automatism - sleepwalking / concussion / taking drugs
Insane automatism - mental disease
What is the criminal liability for acts performed in state of automatism?
acts are involuntary so no liability.
what is the courts position on a defence of Automatism caused by alcohol/drug consumption?
Court is reluctant to accept automatism by voluntary intake of alcohol/drugs.
However if defence can provide sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities that they had become an automaton by ingesting drugs/alcohol they are not responsible for their actions.
In what circumstances does the general rule that intoxication may be a defence apply?
- 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 (complete acquittal).
When can intoxication be used a defence?
Intoxication can be used as a defence in New Zealand to any crime that requires intent.
Offences that don’t require intent to be proved are strict liabilities and the only defence is to prove a total absence of fault.
Taking drink/drugs to gain Dutch courage will disqualify a defence of drunkenness or automatism.
Why is a defence of intoxication unlikely to succeed?
Because the intent element required in most offences is very simple. , eg assault/fighting - it will be unlikely a person did not know they were punching another person
