Part 6 Defences Involving State of Mind Flashcards
Insanity
s23
(1) Everyone shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved
(2) 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 -
(a) Of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or
(b) Of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong
(3) Insanity before or after the time when he did or omitted the act, and insane delusions, though only partial, may be evidence that the offender was, at the time when he did or omitted the act, in such a condition of mind as to render him irresponsible for the act or omission
Insanity - Who decides on whether the defendant is insane?
s20(4) of CP(MIP)03
A judge may put the issue of insanity before the jury
R v Cottle (Case law - Burden of proof)
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 (Case law - insanity is a legal question not a medical one)
The decision as to an accussed’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 not been unable to know that his act was morally wrong
Insanity - M’Naghten’s Rules
- It is based on the person’s ability to think rationally, so that is a person is insane, they were acting under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind and that they did not know:
- The nature and quality of their actions, or
- that what they were doing was wrong
Insanity - Disease of the Mind
- A term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense
- The law being concerned with the ‘mind’ - mental faculties of reason, memory, and understanding; and the disorder may be permanent or temporary, of short or long duration, curable or incurable
- Doesnt include external factors such as blow to the head, drugs, alcohol, hypnotism or an anaesthetic
Insanity - A Question in Law
- Medical witnesses are permitted to say whether they regard a disorder as a disease of the mind
- Disease of the mind is a question of law for the judge
R v Codere (Case law - Nature and Quality of the act)
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
Automatism
- A state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them
- It can be a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing - Sleepwalking
- Could be caused by a medical condition or by consumption of alcohol and drugs.
R v Cottle (Case law- 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
Automatism - Two Types of Automatism
- Sane Automatism - The result of somnambulism, a blow to the head or, effect of drugs
- Insane Automatism - The result of a mental disease
Automatism - Application in NZ Courts
- In NZ, the Courts are likely to steer a middle course, allowing a defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol and drugs, to offences of basic intent only
- They are likely to disallow the defence where the state of mind is obviously self-induced, the person is blameworthy, and the consequences could have been expected
Intoxication
- Where intoxication causes a disease of the mind
- If intent is required as an essential element of the offence
- Causes a state of automatism
Intoxication - Crown must Prove
- All you need to establish is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s required state of mind at the time of the offence
Intoxication - As a Defence
- Can be used as a defence in NZ to any crime that requires intent
- Dutch courage reasoning, disqualifies a defence of drunknness or automatism
- Cannot be used as a defence to strict liability offences (EBA) as they do not require intent to prove the offence. Total absence of fault is the defence for these offences.
