DEFENCE INVOLVING STATE OF MIND

Question 1

Insanity
What is the procedure where the defendant poses a risk to the community?

Answer 1

They can become the subject of a RESTRICTED PATIENT ORDER
(Mental Health Compulsory Assessment and Treatment Act 1992).

Question 2

Can the Prosecution raise the issue of insanity when there is a risk to the public?

Answer 2

No. The Compulsory Assessment and Restricted Patient Order under s54(1) takes care of that.

R v Green - held it is only a matter for the Defense to raise.

Question 3

If the Crown holds any relevant evidence of insanity, what must they do?

Answer 3

Put it in the hands of the defence to put up the plea of insanity if they want to.

Question 4

If the defendant does not offer an Insanity defence, can a Judge still put the issue before the Jury? And can the judge still commit the defendant to a hospital or secure facility for treatment?

Answer 4

Both yes

Question 5

Can a defendant be Aquitted on the basis of insanity even though they have not offered insanity as a defence?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Section 20, Criminal Proceedings (Mentally Impaired Person Act 2003

What does entering a VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY ON ACCOUNT OF INSANITY BY CONSENT mean?

Answer 6

It means that BOTH the prosecution and the defense agree that the accused was legally insane at the time of the offense and therefore should not be held criminally responsible.

This avoids a full trial

The Judge must still be satisfied the evidence supports the finding of insanity.

Question 7

What case law sets the standard of proof for the defendant before a Jury when proving their INSANITY?
What does the case laws say?

Answer 7

Cottle:
A PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES is sufficient rather than EXCLUDING ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

Question 8

The evidence supporting the determination of INSANITY usually comes from MEDICAL EXPERTS.

So, is the determination of INSANITY a legal question or a medical one?

Answer 8

Despite the evidence being from medical opinions. The question is a LEGAL one.

Question 9

What case law answers the question and decides a verdict of insanity? And what does the case law say?

Answer 9

Clark:
The JURY DECIDES the verdict of insanity based on finding the defendant had not known or was unable to know that his act was MORALLY WRONG

Question 10

What are the two elements of the M’Naughten’s Rule:

Answer 10

1. Did not understand the nature and quality of their act, or
   
   2. Did not know that their act was wrong (legally or morally).

Question 11

Could EPILEPSY be considered a DISEASE OF THE MIND?

Answer 11

Yes. If it conforms to the M’Naughten’s Rule

Question 12

Could intoxication or a blow to the head be considered a Disease of the mind?

Answer 12

No. These temporary affects are not considered a disease of the mind.

Question 13

Is disease of the mind a medical or legal question?

Answer 13

Legal.

Question 14

What case law defines the term, NATURE AND QUALITY of an act?
What does it say?

Answer 14

Codere:
NATURE AND QUALITY means the PHYSICAL CHARACTER of the act. It does not refer to any MORAL PERCEPTION.

Question 15

If evidence shows the defendant did not know their actions were MORALLY WRONG, then could they be expected to have reasoned that their actions were still LEGALLY WRONG?

Answer 15

No. Without the moral perception it is regarded that they did not possess the rational ability to perceive the legal position.

Question 16

When deciding the outcome of a case (Detention, Release, or Alternative Order) what must the judge consider?

Answer 16

In cases where judge is considering release or an alternative to detention, he must consider whether this is SAFE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

Question 17

In the case of serious homicide Who may direct the defendant to be held as a PATIENT or CARE RECIPIENT?

Answer 17

Attorney General

Question 18

What case law deals with the subject matter AUTOMATISM?
What does it say?

Answer 18

RV Cottle:
A temporary ECLIPSE of CONSCIOUSNESS that nevertheless leaves the person able to exercise BODILY MOVEMENTS

Question 19

What are two examples that may be classified as automatism?

Answer 19

Sleep walking
Concussion

Question 20

Is there any criminal liability for Automatism?

Answer 20

No

Question 21

Can alcohol and drugs cause automatism?

Answer 21

Yes

Question 22

If someone does an act without the control of the mind what is this an example of?

Answer 22

SANE AUTOMATISM

Question 23

If someone does an act without the control of the mind as a result of a mental disease what is this an example of?

Answer 23

INSANE AUTOMATISM

Question 24

What is Strict Liability?

Answer 24

STRICT LIABILITY is a legal doctrine holding a party LIABLE for a violation without proof of INTENT or NEGLIGENCE, focusing on the ACT itself rather than the MENTAL STATE of the defendant.

Question 25

What must be proven for the AUTOMATISM defense in intoxication cases?

Answer 25

Evidence must clearly raise the issue that the defendant acted as an AUTOMATON due to excessive drug or alcohol ingestion.

Question 26

Can AUTOMATISM be raised for STRICT LIABILITY offenses in New Zealand?

Answer 26

Yes, the High Court has stated this defense can be raised for STRICT LIABILITY charges, such as driving with excess BREATH ALCOHOL.

Question 27

Automatism. Keech v Pratt held that:

Answer 27

if a defendant can show their intoxication was not their fault (e.g., due to automatism), they may avoid liability.

Question 28

Given an example of an offence that does not require intent?

Answer 28

Drink-driving

Question 29

Is the court likely to consider a defence of AUTOMATISM if the defendant was aware that their actions, like consuming drug or alcohol, could lead to problems (like committing a crime)?

Answer 29

No. The court is unlikely to accept automatism as a valid defense. The focus is on personal responsibility for the choices made regarding alcohol or drug use.

Question 30

Give three instances where intoxication can be a defence?

Answer 30

(1) intoxication causes DISEASE OF THE MIND (2) intoxication removes the capability for INTENT Intoxication causes AUTOMATISM

Question 31

Can intoxication be a defence for any crime requiring intent?

Answer 31

Yes

Question 32

If a person forms the INTENT to commit a crime and then takes drink or drugs in order to help them commit the crime is INTOXICATION a defence in that case?

Answer 32

No. This will disqualify our defence of drunkenness or automatism.

Question 33

Can INTOXICATION be used to establish IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?

Answer 33

No.

Question 34

Simple intent. If a person VOLUNTARILY consumes ALCOHOL or DRUGS and they commit an offence involving VIOLENCE or DANGER to any person, can they use INTOXICATION as a defence?

Answer 34

No. Such claims and mitigation are not permitted in cases where the offence is one of involving VIOLENCE or DANGER to any person.

Question 35

Is ignorance of the law a defence? What act and section applies to this?

Answer 35

No. Section 25 of the crimes act 1961, says that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Question 36

In offences requiring SIMPLE or BASIC INTENT can a claim of intoxication MITIGATE the penalty?

Answer 36

Yes. Intoxication can be used to mitigate the penalty.

Question 37

What must happen if the defendant’s condition may warrant a finding of insanity?

Answer 37

The issue must be presented to the jury, regardless of whether the defense has been raised, due to statutory requirements.