Defences involving State of Mind SA Flashcards
Burden of proof for insanity
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.
What are M’Naghten’s rules?
They are frequently used to establish whether or not a defendant is insane. It is based on the persons 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:
- that nature and quality of their actions or
- that what they were doing was wrong
Is ‘Disease of the mind’ a medical or a legal question?
In practice, 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.
Automatism defence
Automatism can best be described as a state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.
Automatism caused by consumption of alcohol or drugs
Where automatism is brought about by a voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs the Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention.
The two types of automatism
Sane automatism - the result of somnambulism (sleepwalking), a blow to the head or the effects of drugs
Insane automatism - the result of a mental disease
Intoxication defence
The general rule has been that intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:
- where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so as to bring s23(Insanity) of the Crimes Act 1961 into effect
- if intent is required as an essential element of the offence and the drunkenness is such that the defence can plead a lack of intent to commit the offence.
- where the intoxication causes a state of automatism
The Crown must prove intent required for intoxication
The New Zealand court of appeal case, R v Kamipeli, makes it clear that, for intoxication to succeed as a defence, all you need to establish is reasonable doubt about the defendants required state of mind at the time of the offence.
Intoxication available as a defence to any crime requiring intent
Can be used as a defence to any charge.
In cases of homicide and other crimes, evidence that a person formed an intent to commit a crime and then took drink or drugs as part of the method of committing the crime (gaining Dutch courage) will disqualify a defence of drunkenness or automatism.
Where a defence of intoxication is unlikely to succeed
With regard to strict liability offences, (like excess breath/blood alcohol) the defence of intoxication is unlikely to be very successful because the intent element required by the offence is so simple or basic that the person is not able to establish they had no intent to commit the offence
