Lesson Plan XV: Insanity

Question 1

What is the history of the Insanity defence?

Answer 1

Historically, offenders with mental disorders had 2 verdicts available to them:
1. Conviction  mental disorder was NOT sufficient ton constitute insanity
2. Acquittal by reason of insanity  followed by indefinite detention

Then, a new common law rule developed with R v Swain, and indefinite detention was found unconstitutional
- New common law rule: Crown can raise accused’s mental health only if:
1. The trier of fact has determined the accused is (otherwise) guilty, or
2. The accused has put his or her mental capacity in issue

New Section 16 of the Code is passed  accused now has 3 possible verdicts:
1. Conviction
2. Acquittal
3. Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR)

NCR verdict leads to:
- Accused being diverted into special procedural stream
- Review Board can: Detain accused in secure facility, Release them on conditions, Provide an absolute discharge

This new regime serves 2 goals:
1. Protect public from those who can cause injury
2. Fairly treat mentally disordered

Question 2

What is the importance of Cooper v the Queen?

Answer 2

Key Facts: Accused killed someone. Doctor provided medical evidence of mental issues like narcolepsy/low IQ/auditory hallucinations/abnormal brainwaves.

Ratio: Defines “disease of the mind”, “mental disorder”, and the meaning of “appreciate vs. fail to know”

Question 3

What is the difference between “appreciating” and “knowing” for the mens rea requirement of insanity?

Answer 3

Knowing = merely awareness of a physical act
Appreciates = understanding of consequences of that act

Question 4

What is the importance of Kjeldsen v The Queen?

Answer 4

Key Facts: Accused killed driver of taxi while on day pass from mental hospital. Evidence showed accused was psychopath + had deviant sexual tendencies.

Ratio: Psychopathy, although a mental disorder, does NOT qualify for s.16.

Question 5

What is the importance of R v Chaulk?

Answer 5

Key Facts: 2 boys committed burglary & killed homeowner. Evidence showed one boy suffered from paranoid psychosis (believed he had power to rule the world/killing was necessary)

Ratio:
- At common law, everyone is presumed sane but this is rebuttable on a BOP if the accused had a disease of the mind (follow 2 routes to Insanity). This presumption of sanity is constitutional because it would be impossibly onerous to require everyone to prove sanity in every case first

• meaning of “wrong” in s.16 is MORALLY wrong

Question 6

What is the importance of R v Oommen?

Answer 6

Key Facts: Accused killed someone while believing they were the target of a conspiracy trying to destroy him.

Ratio: Focus is on whether at the time of the act, a mental disorder deprives the accused from the capacity to determine right from wrong in a way that a normal person would.

Question 7

What is the importance of R v Longridge?

Answer 7

Key Facts: Accused charged with murder of daughter, believed had to sacrifice daughter to save the world. Long history of mental illness (schizophrenia/bipolar disorder).

Ratio: Gives an example of the application of what is “morally wrong”.