New Zealand Law/Criminal/Insanity
Definition
editPerson labouring under:
- (a) natural imbecility or
- (b) disease of the mind
- such that the person is:
- (i) incapable of understanding the nature and quality of act; or
- (ii) incapable of knowing that act is morally wrong having regard to commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
Crimes Act 1961-Sec 23
Cases
editR v Macmillan
edit- Facts
- Macmilian was charged with attempting to break out of Mt Eden prison. Evidence of schizophrenia.
- Held
- Even though M might have known that others thought his actions were morally wrong, he was still legally insane because he considered that those values didn’t apply to him.
- The tests of the accused’s knowledge of moral wrongfulness is subjective.
- If the accused could not, due to a disorder mind, rationally think of the reasons that make an act or omission wrong, he is entitled to an acquittal.
Police v Bannin [1991] 2 NZLR 237
edit- Facts
- Schoolboy with Kleine-Levin syndrome.
- Expert said not automatism or disease of mind.
- Held
- Judge can receive expert evidence but must categorise himself.
- Automatism and Disease of the Mind are legal not medical terms.
- If the malfunction is internal and the risk of recurrence is high – the Court is entitled to order treatment.
- However, it is still necessary to prove that the defendant was not conscious. (There was evidence was that Bannin was aware of important facts and acted intentionally.)
- Nevertheless, prosecution had not proven that Bannin had an intention to commit a crime when he entered the house.
R v Green
edit- Facts
- Green shot policeman, under the belief that the KGB were about to enter and kidnap him.
- At trial, the Crown raised all evidence of insanity.
- Held
- Unfair for Crown to adduce evidence of insanity
- New trial ordered.
R v Hamblyn
edit- Facts
- Def convicted of theft.
- Evidence of multiple personalty disorder.
- Expert evidence disagreed as to whether at the relevant time, appellant was incapable of understanding nature and quality of act.
- Held
- Not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that appellant satisfied either limb.
- Defence claimed the defendant was unable to control alter egos. However, the judge's view was that the defendant's various personalities were not insane.
Ericsson v Police
edit- Facts
- Evidence that 18 year old defendant had retarded personality and social skills.
- Held
- Insane automatism (applying Rabey v The Queen 1980 2 SCR 513, Supreme Court of Canada)
- The only identified precipitating event was argument with boyfriend.