Defences - State of Mind Flashcards
Section 23, Crimes Act 1961
(Legal insanity)
(1) Everyone shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing/omitting any act until the contrary is proved.
(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done/omitted when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable of -
(a) understanding the nature and quality of the act/omission, or
(b) knowing that the act/omission was morally wrong
(3) Insanity before or after the time the act was done or omitted, may be evidence that the offender was in such a condition of mind as to render him irresponsible for the act/omission
Defence counsel to raise the issue of insanity
Insanity is a matter for the defence to raise and the prosecution is prohibited from adducing evidence of insanity
Where there is a risk to public safety, person can become the subject of a restricted patient order under 54(1) Mental Health Act 1992
No defence of insanity called - Judge discretion
Only in exceptional cases would the trial Judge put the issue of insanity to the jury (where no defence of insanity has been made)
A judge may commit a person, who has committed an imprisonable offence, to a hospital or secure facility (instead of passing a sentence) if it is in the offender’s interests or for reasons of public safety (s34 CP Act 2003)
Strong evidence of insanity - where no defence of insanity submitted
A person can still be acquitted of a charge if there is strong evidence to indicate that the defendant was insane at the time of the alleged offence (even if defence do not put insanity at issue)
Section 20(2), Criminal Procedure Mentally Impaired Person Act 2003
(Not guilty - Insanity - by consent)
On agreement between defence, prosecution and Jury (or Judge), a verdict of not guilty on account of insanity (early conclusion before trial)
Burden of Proof
It is up to the defence to prove that the defendant is insane (balance of probabilities)
If defence cannot prove insanity, but jury thinks that defendant is insane - entitled to acquittal on grounds of insanity
M’Naghten’s Rules
(Test for criminal liability of defendant claiming insanity)
Test is based on the persons ability to think rationally.
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:
(a) nature and quality of their actions, or
(b) that what they were doing was wrong
(Defendant needs to know morally wrong, not legally wrong)
Meaning of “disease of the mind”
Mental derangement in the widest sense.
Does not include a temporary mental disorder caused by some external factor, such as a blow on the head, drugs/alcohol, hypnotism
Automatism
A state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them
e.g. suffering from concussion, sleepwalking
Common law rule = no criminal liability
Automatism - caused by alcohol/drugs
Court may be reluctant to accept the actions were involuntary/offender lacked intention. Convincing evidence to support is necessary
Sane v Insane Automatism
Sane - sleepwalking, blow to the head, effect of drugs etc
Insane - the result of mental disease
Automatism - treated as insanity
Dependent on the presence or absence of a disease of the mind.
If mental disease or some other form is found to be present, a finding of insanity would be permissible. The legal test of insanity applies.
Automatism - acquittal
If there is no question of disease of the mind, a successful plea of automatism negates intent as well as responsibility for the act, and therefore the result is an acquittal
Situations were intoxication may be considered as a defence
(1) Where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind
(2) If intent is required as an element and the intoxication is such that the defence can plead lack of intent
(3) Where intoxication causes a state of automatism
Section 25, Crimes Act 1961
(Ignorance of Law)
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by them
