Defences Involving State of Mind Flashcards
Insanity (S23)
INSANITY
(1) Every one shall be presumed to be sane until proved otherwise.
(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence, 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/omission
(b) Of knowing that the act/omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
(3) Insanity before or after the time act/omission and insane delusions, though only partial, may be evidence that the offender was, at the time of omission/act in such a condition of mind as to render him irresponsible of that.
R V COTTLE
R V COTTLE - DEGREE OF PROOF
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities not necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
Insanity Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
Defendant not required to prove defence of insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, but to the satisfaction of the jury on the BOP
Insanity Medical or Legal
Insanity is a legal question not medical. Classification by medical witnesses is not final, whether a particular condition is a disease of the mind is QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE JUDGE.
M’ Naghten’s Rules
A persons ability to think rationally. Acting under such a defect, did they know;
- the nature and quality of their actions
- that what they were doing was wrong
R V CODERE
R V CODERE
Nature/quality of the act means the physical character of the act. Does not involve any consideration for accused moral perception or knowledge of the moral quality of the act. Person who so deluded they cut a throat believing it’s load of bread would not know nature/quality of act.
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.
Automatism
A state of total blackout during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.
R V COTTLE
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.
Sane Vs Insane Automatism
Sane Automatism - The result of sleepwalking, a blow to the head or the effects of drugs
Insane Automatism - The result of a mental disease.
NZ Courts and Automatism
NZ COURTS are likely to steer a middle course, allowing a defence of AUTOMATISM arising out of taking ALCOHOL/DRUGS to offences of basic intent only. Reluctant to accept the action were involuntary or offender lacked intention. Likely to disallow defence where state of mind is self-induced/expected.
Intoxication Defences
- 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.
Intoxication and Intent
INTOXICATION AND INTENT
For intoxication to succeed as a defence all you need to establish is reasonable doubt about the defendants required state of mind at time of offence.
Intoxication defence will be available to the defence to establish defendant did not have requisite intent for offence.
Intoxication as a Defence
INTOX DEFENCE
Can be used as a defence in NZ to any crime that requires intent. Only way can escape such offence is prove total absence of fault.
Unlikely to succeed with EBA as intent is so simple that the person is not able to establish that they had no intent.
Dutch Courage
Evidence that person formed intent to commit crime then took alcohol/drugs as part of method will disqualify defence of automatism/drunkness.
