Defences - State of Mind Flashcards
S23 - Insanity
Every one is presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved.
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 of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
Defence to Raise Issue of Insanity
Where the defendant poses a risk to the community, there is a procedure by which they can become the subject of a “restricted patient” order under s54(1) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.
Further, a Judge may put the issue of insanity before the jury under s20(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CP(MIP)) Act).
Practical Implications
It is not proper for the Crown to call evidence of insanity, but any relevant evidence in the hands of the Crown should be offered to the defence, leaving it to the defendant to put up the plea of insanity if they wish to do so.
If the defence chooses not to plead insanity, it would be in only exceptional cases that the trial judge would put the issue to the jury. The judge may still commit a person to a hospital or secure facility or, instead of passing sentence, order that the offender be treated as a patient under the Mental Health Act 1992 or be cared for as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability.
Where there is strong evidence of insanity
A person can be acquitted of a charge, even if they or their counsel have not put up the defence of insanity, if there is strong evidence to indicate that the defendant did commit the alleged offence but was insane at the time.
Burden of Proof
As in all cases where the burden of proof is on the defendant, the standard of proof required is not as high as that demanded of the prosecution. 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.
During a trial in the District Court or High Court, the defendant may plead insanity as a defence to any charge punishable by imprisonment. Insanity is a legal question, not a medical one.
R v Cottle
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
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 founded on that evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.
M’Naghten’s Rules/Test
Have been a standard test for criminal liability in relation to mentally disordered defendants in common law jurisdictions ever since, with some minor adjustments.
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 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.
Physical Damage Not Necessary
“Mind” — the mental faculties of reason, memory, and understanding; and the disorder may be permanent or temporary, of short or long duration, curable or incurable.
R v Cottle accepted that epilepsy, although physical, could amount to a disease of the mind.
Temporary Mental Disorder Not Included
Such as a blow on the head, the absorption of drugs, alcohol, or an anaesthetic, or hypnotism.
A Question of Law
Medical witnesses are permitted to say whether they regard a disorder as a “disease of the mind”, as well as testifying as to the causes and symptoms of the condition diagnosed, but such a classification by medical witnesses is not final, and whether the particular condition is a disease of the mind is a question of law for the Judge.
Disease of the mind is not a medical question but a legal one.
Nature and quality of the act
The defence is established if mental disease rendered the defendant “incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission”.
The words “nature and quality” are to be read as a composite expression dealing only with the physical character of the conduct, and not as separate terms distinguishing its physical and moral aspects.
R v Codere
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 woman’s throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.
Morally Wrong
The test is that the defendant knew that their acts were morally wrong – they do not need to know that they were legally wrong. If someone cannot understand that their act is morally wrong, then they lack rational understanding.
Public interest may override other factors
In the case of a serious homicide the public interest to detain the offender may override other factors. Under s31 CP(MIP) Act, the Attorney-General may direct that the defendant be held as a patient or a care recipient.
