#6202 - Defences Insanity & Automatism - Criminal Law

9. Defences:Insanity and Automatism Mental Impairment General Tensions * Tensions between the rights of society to punish for crimes, and the rights of an individual who is not 'responsible' for his/her actions, due to mental impairment. * Tensions between two disciplines: law and medicine / psychiatry Insanity (Mental Illness) 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. * The presumption is that the defendant is sane: M'Naghten's Case(1843) * The presumption of capacity can only be displaced by evidence, usually medical evidence: Falconer (1990) * The defence of insanity can be raised by both the defence and the prosecution. * The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities: Ayoub [1984] 2 NSWLR 511. The test (element) for insanity defence is as follows: * A jury has to ask whether, at the time of committing the act: M'Naghten's Case(1843): 1. Prerequisite: * At the time of the offence, * the accused was labouring under a defect of reason; * A defect of reason means * A defect of cognition (ie capacity re understanding) - not sufficient if merely confused/ forgetful * A 'malfunction of mental faculties': Radford (1985) * A defect of reason does not mean a defect of volition (i.e., exercise of will) * Uncontrollable impulse, without more, not sufficient for mental illness defence: Sodeman (1936) * Lack of emotional feeling or moral appreciation is not cognitive defect, and thus does not a defect of reason: Willgoss (1960) * NB: Code jurisdictions (include Commonwealth) say not criminally responsible if can't control self. Insulin Case: Paddisin (1973) 1. D diabetic took insulin but ate little and drank alcohol - committed assault 2. Trial: med evidence says D's hypoglycaemia = mental illness, not Automatism. 3. CA: policy statement by Denning in Bratty too broad w/o qualification - can't send diabetic to mental hospital for low blood sugar reaction when easy remedy = lump of sugar! 4. Here: mental malfunction due to external factor (insulin) and not to disease of mind Hennessy (1989 UK): 1. D diabetic failed to take insulin for few days - hyperglycaemic - committed theft 2. In Quick, D's state of mind due to insulin (external), but here it was due to diabetes (internal) 3. It was held a disease of mind. Position in Australia unclear * due to a disease of the mind; * Disease of mind may be temporary or permanent: Porter (1933) * Disease of mind concerned with "the understanding" - the mind's functions are thrown into disorder, i.e., disease of mind focuses on "the mind", not solely on physical deterioration of brain cells. * Requires a disorder, merely a high emotional state of the 'normal' man does not count: (Mere excitability of a normal man, passion, even stupidity, obtuseness, lack of selfcontrol, and impulsiveness, are all quite different to a disease of mind) * A mental disorder that 'manifests itself in violence and is prone to recur' is a disease of the mind (eg, schizophrenia): Bratty v AG (NI) * A mental disorder arising from an external cause is not a disease of the mind: * Mental malfunctioning of a transitory nature caused by some external factor such as violence, drugs, alcohol, etc, has been held not to be due to disease: Radford (1985). Quick [1973]; Paddisin (1973) 1