Mental State Defences Study Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Study Notes to take in for open book exam...

Description

Mental State Defences – mental impairment – automatism – intoxication





If a person suffers from a mental illness at the time of the offence, the defence is usually raised by accused but can be raised by the court or the prosecution. The accused must satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities. The legislation is in Part 4 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. The legislation adopts the common law test. That is that at the time of committing the act the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong

The insanity defence allows: a defendant who was seriously mentally impaired at the time of committing an offence to escape a conviction. The rules governing the insanity defence are as follows:   

It can only be used in the higher courts. It can be raised by both the defence and the prosecution. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities: The test for insanity defense is as follows:

A jury has to ask whether, at the time of committing the act M’Naghten's Case [1843-1860] ALL ER Rep 229. 1. The accused was labouring under a defect of reason due to a disease of the mind; Disease of the mind means any mental disorder that ‘manifests itself in violence and is prone to recur’ (eg, schizophrenia): Bratty v AG (Northern Ireland).[2]  External influences (such as intoxication etc) do not count: R v Quick.[3]  Requires a disorder, merely a high emotional state of the 'normal' man does not count: Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182. 2. That due to this disease of the mind, the accused either:  Did not know the nature and quality of their act; OR 

Narrow test, the accused did not understand what they were doing, and what the implications would be (ie, ending a life): Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182. Did not know what they were doing was wrong.  Broader test, the accused knew what they were doing but was not capable of reasoning that his act is wrong is the normal standards of everyday life: Porter (1933) 



55 CLR 182.

If the insanity defense is successfully proven, the court issues a 'special verdict' of 'not guilty by reason of mental illness' : s38 of Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1990 (NSW). 

Punishment is decided according to s39: Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1990 (NSW).

 

The person is detained in a manner which the court sees fit (usually in a fitting institution) until the court chooses to release the person. 'The person should only be released after the court is satisfied (on the balance of probabilities) that the safety of the person or the public will not be seriously endangered by the person’s release.

M’Naghten's Case [1843-1860] ALL ER Rep 229 Legal issues 

Insanity Defence - Laying down the laws of the insanity defence.

Background facts

 

The Defendant [McNaughton, incorrectly spelt M’Naghten] was convicted of shooting and killing a prominent political figure. It appeared that the Defendant was delusional and paranoid that the political party were trying to kill him, and it also that he was under the impression that he killed the prime minister as opposed to his secretary (the real victim). Medical experts testified that he was insanely delusional. He was acquitted. After a public outcry, the House of Lords had to review the case (this appeal).



A jury has to ask whether, at the time of committing the act:

 

Judgement

1. The accused was labouring under a defect of reason due to a disease of the mind; and 2. That due to this disease of the mind, the accused either: 1. Did not know the nature and quality of their act; OR 2. Did not know what they were doing was wrong. 

The Defendant was found to be insane and was incarcerated at a hospital.

Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 Background facts  The Defendant [Porter] became estranged from his wife and extremely emotional because of it. Evidence suggests he had a nervous breakdown, barely slept, and took a lot of aspirin and caffeine.  After a final unsuccessful attempt to reconcile with his wife, he decided to commit suicide and kill his infant child as well. He injected his son with poison, but the police came in before he had a chance to kill himself.  He was charged for the murder of his son, and he pleaded that he was mentally insane at the time. Legal issues  Insanity Defence - Clarifying terms from M’Naghten's Case Judgement  Every person is presumed to be sane unless he argues otherwise (prosecution doesn't need to disprove it until it is raised).  When assessing insanity, it is important to only assess whether the accused was insane at the time the act was committed, as opposed to before, after, or now.







A 'disease of the mind' is defined as much more than mere excitability, stupidness, passion, lack of self control etc. Those are the actions of the normal man, and a 'disease of the mind' requires a real disorder. 'Did not know the nature and quality of their act' means that the accused did not understand what they were doing, and what the implications would be (ie, ending a life). o This is a very high standard. The person must be so clueless that, in his mind, ending a life would be the same as breaking a twig. 'Did not know what they were doing was wrong' means that the accused was not capable of reasoning that his act is wrong is the normal standards of everyday life. o This is a lower standard.

The M’Naghten Rules Part 4 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) provides for the defence of mental illness. However, the actual definition of the defence and how its practical application is still to be found in M'Naghten's Case, the leading common law authority from the 18th century: 

A jury has to ask whether, at the time of committing the act:

1. The accused was labouring under a defect of reason due to a disease of the mind; and 2. That due to this disease of the mind, the accused either: 1. Did not know the nature and quality of their act; OR 2. Did not know what they were doing was wrong. Procedures Involved -in how to plead the insanity defence and what happens if it is successfully proven. Below is a step-by-step guide: Pleading the insanity defence: 1. Both the defence and the prosecution are entitled to plead the insanity defence. 2. Whichever party raises the defence has the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities. 3. Proving the defence is done according to the common law principles covered above.  Effect of the insanity defence: 1. If the insanity defence is successfully proven, the court issues a 'special verdict' of 'not guilty by reason of mental illness'. [12] 2. The Court then decides the punishment of the person according to s39, which basically states: 3. The person is detained in a manner which the court sees fit (usually in a fitting institution) until the court chooses to release the person. 4. 'The person should only be released after the court is satisfied (on the balance of probabilities) that the safety of the person or the public will not be seriously endangered by the person’s release. 

Note: use of the insanity defence therefore has the potential for indefinite detainment, which often deters people from using it.

Balance of Probabilities Proving something on the balance of probabilities means to prove that it is more likely to have happened than not (ie, a 51% chance). Qld - Insanity Every person is presumed to be sane until the contrary is proven. This means that a defendant must show on the balance of probabilities that they were of unsound mind at the time of the offence. A person is insane and not criminally responsible if they are deprived of one or more of the following capacities:   

understand what they are doing control their actions know that they ought not to be doing it.

In Queensland, the Mental Health Court generally determines whether a person was of unsound mind at the time of the offence or if they are fit for trial. The prosecution is discontinued if the Mental Health Court makes a finding of unsoundness of mind or permanent unfitness (ss 26–27 Criminal Code). Qld - Automatism

This defence applies when the accused acted without conscious volition due to some external cause at the time of committing the offence (s 23 Criminal Code). Examples can include an epileptic fit, concussion or sleep walking. NSW- Automatism o Criminal responsibility does not attach to an act done in a state of automatism, that is, where the act is not done in consciousness of the nature of the act and in exercise of a choice to do an act of that nature: Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205 at 213; R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 at 39. o Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act. For example, Esther Griggs in 1858 threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire, while having a sleep terror o The defence of automatism is denying that the person was acting in the sense that the criminal law demands. As such it is really a denial-of-proof – the defendant is asserting that the offence is not made out. The prosecution does not have to disprove the defence as is sometimes erroneously reported; the prosecution has to prove all the elements of the offence including the voluntary act requirement. Automatism is a defence even against strict liability crimes like dangerous driving, where no intent is necessary.

Qld - Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication is not a defence and nor can it be taken into account as a mitigating feature on sentence. The insanity defence provisions similarly apply to a person whose mind is disordered by involuntary intoxication or stupefaction.

Section 28(3) (Criminal Code) provides that intentional intoxication should be considered in determining whether intention exists in relation to offences that require an intention to cause a specific result. Murder is the most important of the few offences that contain an element of intention. NSW – Intoxication In some circumstances, the fact that the defendant was intoxicated during the commission of an offence might play a role in determining guilty. These situations include: 

Voluntariness - intoxication only taken into consideration for determining voluntariness if not self-induced: s 428G Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). o







(a) involuntary; or



(b) results from fraud, sudden or extraordinary emergency, accident, reasonable mistake, duress or force; or



(c) done according to medical needs (prescribed by a registered practitioner etc).

Specific intent offences - intoxication to be taken into consideration for determining specific intent regardless of self-induced or not: s 428C. o

Specific intent is an intent to cause a particular consequence (ie, intent to kill/cause grievous bodily harm): s 428B

o

Non-exhaustive list of specific intent offences can be found in s 428B.

Basic intent offences - intoxication only taken into consideration for determining basic intent if not self-induced: s 428D. o



'Self-induced' intoxication is any intoxication which is not (:s 428A) :

Basic intent is an intent to perform an act.

Reasonable person test - reasonable person in the position of the defendant is not intoxicated: s 428F

Intoxication In Criminal Liability R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135 Court of Appeal

The appellant was convicted of murder. At the time of the killing he was intoxicated and believed that he was under attack. He appealed against his conviction on the ground that the judge failed to mention the effect of intoxication on self defence. Held: When a defendant because of self- induced intoxication formed the mistaken belief that it was necessary to use force to defend himself, a plea of self-defence failed O'Grady was binding on this point. The appeal was, however, allowed and the conviction for murder replaced by a conviction for

manslaughter on the ground that the judge failed to direct the jury that self-induced drunkenness could have the effect of preventing the defendant from forming the specific intent that is an element of the crime of murder. around intoxication and the committing of a criminal offence, the key question

that needs to be answered is whether or not the person had the specific intent during the act, rather than a loss of capacity in forming the intent. Getting Drunk (Or High) Is Usually A Voluntary Action,

 

if intoxication is an issue, the courts may look to the wider circumstances surrounding the action, and when intoxication occurred. Case law regarding the issue of intoxication and the committing of the criminal act still revolves around the issue of actual intent. The court will look at whether the person voluntarily committed the criminal act, and whether they did so with actual intent. One of the things to be aware of is just because a person has no recollection of committing an offence because of being intoxicated, still does not negate the fact that he or she had the will, or actual intent in committing the criminal act.

DPP v Majewski. DPP v Majewski [1976] UKHL 2 -

is a leading English criminal law case, establishing that voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes requiring only basic intent, the mens rea requirement for these being satisfied by the reckless behaviour of intoxicating oneself

What is a specific intent crime? The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to designate a special state of mind that is required, along with a physical act, to constitute certain crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually interpreted to mean intentionally or knowingly. What is basic intent? A basic intent crime is one where the mens rea is intention or recklessness and does not exceed the actus reus. In simple terms this means that the defendant does not have to have foreseen any consequence, or harm, beyond that laid down in the definition of the actus reus What is the difference between general and specific intent? Under the common law there is a distinction between specific and general intent crimes. The basic difference between the two is that specific intent crimes require the individual who commits the crime to have a certain intent or purpose when the crime was committed, where as general intent crimes do not

R v Kusu [1981] Qd R 136. Intentional intoxication where charge does not involve a specific intent. -

There is evidence that at the time when he did the things which constitute the charge, the defendant was affected by liquor (or drugs). Intoxication1 does not relieve a person of responsibility for committing a crime. It may help you when you are considering the state of his memory of the events surrounding the incident which has given rise to this charge. It may offer some explanation for his conduct. It does not entitle him to an acquittal...