Defences Involving State Of Mind

Question 1

Section 23

Answer 1

Legal insanity

Incapable of understanding nature and quality of the act or knowing the act was morally wrong

Evident at the time, the condition of mind rended him irresponsible

Question 2

Section 20(4) criminal procedure (mentally impaired persons) act

Answer 2

Issue of insanity put before the jury

Question 3

R v Cottle

Answer 3

Burden of proof (insanity)

It is sufficient if the plea is established to satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of probabilities, excluding all reasonable doubt

Question 4

R v Clark

Answer 4

Insanity is a decision for the jury

Verdict can be inconsistent with medical evidence, not unreasonable

Unchallenged medical evidence is supported by facts giving a verdict of insanity

Question 5

McNaughten’s Rules

Answer 5

Standard test for mentally disordered

Acting under a defect of reason from disease of mind, they did not know
- Nature or quality of the act
- What they were doing was wrong

Question 6

Disease of the mind

Answer 6

Defies precise definition

Comprehend mental derangement in the widest sense

Not a medical but legal decision

Question 7

R v Codere

Answer 7

Nature and quality of the act means physical character of the act

Involves no consideration of moral perception nor knowledge of moral quality of the act

Person is so diluted, they would not know nature and quality of the act