Defences Involving State of Mind

Question 1

Legisaltion s23(1) - insanity

Answer 1

Everyone shall be presumed sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved.

Question 2

Legislation s23(2) - insanity

Answer 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.

Question 3

Legislation s23(3) - insanity

Answer 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.

Question 4

What should the Crown do with evidence of insanity?

Answer 4

It is not proper of the Crown to call evidence of insanity but it should be offered to the defense leaving it up to the defendant to put up a plea of insanity.

Question 5

Case law R v Cottle

Answer 5

As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.

Question 6

Is the issue of insanity a legal or medical one?

Answer 6

A legal question, but often involves evidence from medical experts.

Question 7

Case law - R v Clarke

Answer 7

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 not been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.

Question 8

M’Naghtens Rule

Answer 8

it is based on a persons 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

Question 9

Disease of the mind

Answer 9

A term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense.

Question 10

Does disease of the mind include a temporary mental disorder caused by some external factor such as a blow to the head, consumption of drugs, alcohol, hypnotism.

Answer 10

no

Question 11

Is disease of the mind legal question

Answer 11

Yes

Question 12

Case law - R v Codere

Answer 12

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 womans throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know that nature and quality of the act.

Question 13

Define automatism

Answer 13

A state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.

Question 14

Case law - R v Cottle

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Explain culpability in relation to automatism

Answer 15

Actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common law rule is that there is no criminal liability for such conduct.

Question 16

Discuss automatism bought on by drugs/alcohol

Answer 16

Where automatism is bought on by a voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs that Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention.

Question 17

Define sane automatism

Answer 17

the result of somnambulism (sleep walking) a blow to the head or effects of drugs

Question 18

Define insane automatism

Answer 18

the result of mental disease

Question 19

When can intoxication be a defense to the commission of an offence?

Answer 19

• where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so to bring s23 (insanity) into effect
• if intent is required as an essential element of the offence and the drunkenness is such that the defense can plead a lack of intent
• where the intoxication causes a state of automatism.

Question 20

Legislation s25 ignorance of law

Answer 20

the fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.
(except if it is a child - they are not liable)

Question 21

Consequences for someone found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on his insanity

Answer 21

They may be detained as a special patient or special care recipient.

Question 22

Example of offence where no intent is required and where intent is required.

Answer 22

no intent - EBA (defense must prove an absence of fault such as driving without conscious appreciation of driving or intoxication)
with intent - assault

Question 23

Intoxication can be used as a defense to any offence that requires intent?

Answer 23

Yes, in offences requiring simple/basic intent it is unlikely to succeed but may be used by way of mitigation of penalty.