LAWS1016 Mental Illness and SIAM Flashcards
(M’Naghten) Rules
(1) D must prove on the BOP, that at the time of committing the act, he was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind such that:
(a) he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or
(b) he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
If mental illness can be established, then a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness will be returned under s38 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.
What constitutes a “Disease of the mind”
Disease of the mind test: A mental disorder which is “prone to recur” and “manifests itself in violence” (Bratty). A mental disorder arising from from an external cause is not a disease of the mind (Falconer). “An underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, be it of long or short duration and be it permanent or temporary, which can properly be termed mental illness, as distinct from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary external stimuli” (Radford).
(a) he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or
- No capacity to understand the nature of life and the destruction of life, that to him it was no more than breaking a twig.
- (Porter) understood the nature of life as he had given poison to the child and to himself with the intention to suicide (+).
(b) he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
• Wrong = according to the standards of everyday people of reasonable people (Porter).
Unanimous Medical Evidence?
The jury must generally accept unanimous medical evidence that the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind, unless there is also evidence which challenges and casts doubt upon it.
(Da-Pra) jury accepted psychiatric evidence that he suffered an abnormality of mind, but did not accept on the BOP, that at the time of commission, he did not know what he did was wrong, conclusion not unreasonable, expert evidence incomplete, unreliable (-).
SIAM s23A Crimes Act
(1) (a) If it is reasonably possible that at the time of the acts / omissions causing death, D was suffering from an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, which substantially impaired the person’s capacity to understand events, judge whether the person’s actions were right or wrong, or control himself, AND
(b) the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter (value judgement of the jury representing the community).
(2) Self-induced intoxication (within the meaning of s428A) cannot be taken into account.
(7) If the accused argues mental illness or SIAM, P may offer evidence “tending to prove the other of those contentions”.
What constitutes “abnormality of mind”?
Abnormality of mind = state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that a reasonable man would term it abnormal (Byrne).
s23A(8) underlying condition = pre-existing mental or psychological condition, other than that of a transitory kind. Cannot be a mere temporary state of heightened emotions, need not be permanent, can be curable. To be decided by the use of expert evidence (Byrne).
Nexus
D must prove a nexus between the impairment and the offending behaviour – not simply that D had an abnormality of mind at the time of offence, but that it substantially impaired D. (Potts) stabbed sex worker, “be careful of her”, although he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was not substantially impaired by it in relation to the offence.
What constitutes “substantial impairment”?
Test: whether the abnormality operated in a way so that the accusedcould not(as opposed to ‘did not’) stop himself from preforming the act.
Ultimately jury’s task to assess the accused’s blameworthiness in light of his/her impaired mental capacity. This is a question of moral culpability so expert opinion is inadmissible (s23A(2)).
Effect of Intoxication
- If the impairment of capacity was substantial, even if the effects of alcohol are disregarded, then SIAM can still be established. However, if impairment from his underlying condition was not substantial unless he was intoxicated then he cannot establish SIAM.
- (Goodbridge) heavy intoxication superimposed on the underlying brain injury resulted in the substantial impairment, rather than the brain injury alone (-). (Zaro) rumor gf breaking up with him, stabbed some other guy, if he did not take the alcohol / drugs, the psychotic episode would not have been triggered (-).
