Defences Involving State Of Mind Flashcards
(18 cards)
Define Insanity - Section 23 CA61
(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.
What was held in R v Cottle regarding insanity?
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.
What is the burden of proof for insanity?
The accused 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 was held in R v Clark?
The decision as to an accused’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..
Outline M’Naghten’s rules:
The M’Naghten’s rules are frequently used to establish whether or not a defendant is insane. It is based on a person’s 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; or
- that what they were doing was wrong
What the accused’s state of mind was at the time of the offence is a question decided by?
The jury.
A question of law relating to whether the condition is a disease of the mind is answered by whom?
Ultimately a disease of the mind is not a medical question but a legal one, and as such the judge must be the one to answer.
Define Automatism
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.
What was held in R v Cottle regarding 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.
How may the courts view voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs in relation to automatism?
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.
What is “sane” and “insane” automatism?
Automatism may be quite different and distinct from insanity, although it may be due to a disease of the mind. Hence it is necessary to distinguish between
Sane - the result of sleep walking, a blow to the head, or the effects of drugs
Insane - the result of a mental disease
What is a strict liability offence?
Any offence that does not require mens rea be proved by the prosecution. The only way a defendant can escape liability for such an offence is to prove a total absence of fault.
These offences can be defended if proved on the balance of probabilities that the offence committed was without fault through automatism.
How do NZ Courts deal with a defence of Automatism arising out of taking alcohol and/or drugs?
The courts are likely to steer a middle course, allowing a defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol or 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.
What was held in R v Codere?
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.
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) CA61 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 (complete acquittal).
What was held in R v Kamipeli?
It does not have to be shown that the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, merely that, because of their drunken state, they did not have the proper state of mind to be guilty.
As a general guideline, most offences within the CA61 will require an intent (mens Rea) of some kind. Outline a defence that would therefore be generally available:
The defence of intoxication will be available to the defence to establish that the defendant did not have the required intent to carry out the offence.
Outline s25 CA61 - Ignorance of the law
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.
This includes all persons in NZ, whether visiting or permanent residents.
