Defences Involving State Of Mind Flashcards
S23 insanity:
- Everyone shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved.
- 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.
Who can raise insanity as a defence?
Defence to raise issue of insanity. Prosecution is prohibited from adducing evidence of insanity. Judge can raise issue.
Crown evidence on insanity?
It is not proper for the crown to call evidence of insanity, but any relevant evidence the crown holds should be offered to defence, leaving it to them to put up the plea of insanity if they wish to do so.
Sentencing to hospital or secure facility?
The court can commit a person to a hospital or secure facilty instead of a normal sentence. The court must be satisfied when doing this that the offenders mental impairment requires the compulsory care of the offender either in the offenders interest or for reasons of public safety.
Burden of proof for insanity
Up to defence to prove, which means that standard of proof is not as high, i.e. balance of probabilities (if jury thinks it is more likely the defendant is insane then can be acquitted).
R v Cottle
As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of the probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
Is insanity a legal or medical question?
Can plead insanity to any charge punishable by imprisonment. Insanity is a legal question not a medical one, however the question of whether or not the defendant is legally insane is usually addressed by evidence from medical experts called by the defence and the crown.
M’Naghten’s rules
Phased in a 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;
- the nature and quality of their actions
- that what they were doing was wrong
Insanity: timeframe to have insanity?
Do they need to be permanent?
Effects on the mind can be short or long, they need not be permanent or incurable.
Excludes temporary mental disorder caused by external factors. E.g blow on the head, drugs, alcohol etc.
Whether a something is a disease of the mind is a question of law and a question for the judge (even though a medical witness can comment on it).
What is Automatism?
A state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them. (can be caused by sleepwalking, brain tumor, epilepsy, arteriosclerosis or drugs and alcohol, however drugs and alcohol will be unlikely to be accepted as an excuse by the court.
If successful the plea of automatism will result in an acquittal as the mental element of the offence cannot be proved.
R v Cottle (automatism)
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it – a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nethertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.
(An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind).
Culpability of automatism
Culpability of Automatism – Actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common law rule is that there is no criminal liability for such conduct.
Can self induced drug or alcohol use form a defence of automatism
Self-induced intoxication or drug use can lead to a defence of automatism if the evidence is sufficiently strong to support the defence
Discuss intoxication
Intoxication:
Intoxication is often seen as an aggravating factor to a offence, however;
Intoxication can be a defence to the commission of an offence:
Where intoxication causes a disease of the mind (insanity).
If intent is required as an essential element of the offence and the drunkenness is such that the defence can plead lack of intent to commit the offence.
Where the intoxication causes a state of automatism.
Intent and intoxication
The crown must prove the required intent. The defence need to establish reasonable doubt about the defendants required state of mind at the time of the offence.
Intoxication can be a defence to any crime requiring intent. Where the evidence is that the defendant formed an intent and then took alcohol or drugs to help commit the crime this will disqualify the defence of intoxication or automatism.
Often not a successful defence as often intent is very simple. E,g assault is to apply force to another person and despite being very drunk most would know what they are applying force to is a person not another random object.
