DEFENCE OF INSANITY 1.ppt

7/25/2019 DEFENCE OF INSANITY 1.ppt

1/63

THEDEFENCE

OFINSANITY


2/63

INTRODUCTION

Section 84 of Penal Code

Nothing is an oence which is doneby a e!son who at the ti"e of doingit# by !eason of $nso$ndness of "ind#is incaable of %nowing the nat$!e of

the act o! that he is doing what iseithe! w!ong o! cont!a!y to law&


3/63

'()NIN* O+ INS)NIT,

'alaysian !o-ision does not $se thewo!d .insanity/ b$t .$nso$ndness of"ind/

Section 840e!son of $nso$ndness of"ind is not able to fo!" intention andcannot be held liable fo! thei! acts1

De!i-ed f!o" the "ain !$le in thecase of Daniel '/Naghten


4/63

'/Naghten/s R$le2to establish a defence on the g!o$nd of

insanity# it "$st be clea!ly !o-ed that# at the

time of the committing of the act# theacc$sed was labouring under such a defect ofreason# from disease of the mind# as not toknow the nature and quality of the act he

was doing# o! if he did know it# that he did notknow he was doing what was wrong1&


5/63

In Daniel '/Naghten/s case 38456# '/ Naghten hadbeen cha!ged with "$!de! afte! he shot the sec!eta!yof Si! Robe!t Peel# who" he "istoo% fo! Si! Robe!tPeel1 7e was $nde! the del$sion of e!sec$tion thatSi! Robe!t Peel had in$!ed hi"1 7e was ac9$itted onthe g!o$nd of insanity1 In conse9$ence of the ens$ing$blic cont!o-e!sy# the 7o$se of :o!ds $t a n$"be!of 9$estions to the $dges answe!s# we!e !eo!ted inthe law !eo!ts $nde! the heading# Daniel

'/Naghten/s Case&1 )ltho$gh not gi-en in the co$!seof decision nonetheless been acceted by the co$!tse-e! since as co!!ectly laying down the te!"s of thedefence# and the!e a!e now a la!ge n$"be! of!eo!ted $dicial endo!se"ent of the '/Naghten !$les1


6/63

In this case# Tindal C1;1 decided that the

acc$sed did not %now what he had done1)s a !es$lt# it ca$sed $!oa! in thePa!lia"ent1 Then the 7o$se of :o!ds calledthe th!ee $dges and held disc$ssion1 The7o$se of :o!ds# co"!ising of < $dges#!efe!!ed to ce!tain answe!s# na"ely=

a) At the time of committing the

crime, the accused was labouringunder such a defect of reason fromdisease of the mind


7/63

b) That he did not know the nature andquality of the act and if he did know it,he did not know what he was doing

was wrong.The 7o$se of :o!ds laid down >-e !incilesbased on the answe! of the $dges =

6 (-e!y "an is !es$"ed to be the sa"e

and to ossess sa"e deg!ee of!esonsibility $ntil the cont!a!y is !o-en tothe satisfaction of the $!y1


8/63

?6 To establish a defence on theg!o$nd of insanity# it "$st be clea!ly!o-ed that at the ti"e of co""itting

the oence# the acc$sed was labo$!ing$nde! the defect of !eason f!o" thedisease of the "ind as not to %now the

nat$!e and 9$ality of the act he wasdoing o! if he did %now it# he did not%now what he was doing is w!ong1


9/63

56 If the acc$sed was conscio$s thatthe act was one which he o$ght not todo and if the act was at the sa"e ti"e

cont!a!y to the law of the land# he is$nishable1

46 ) "edical witness who has not seen

the acc$sed befo!e t!ial sho$ld not beas%ed whethe! based on the e-idencehe thin%s that the acc$sed is insane1


10/63


11/63

The I"o!tant P!inciles to P!o-eInsanity f!o" '/Naghten/s case

Nat$!e and the 9$ality of the act

Doing what was w!ong

Regina -1 @indle 3A


12/63

i) Nature and quality of the act

)n insane e!son who was acting in a state ofa$to"atis" 3 state of $nconscio$sness 6 wo$ld not

%now the nat$!e of his act1

ii) Doing what was wrong

It "ight be as%ed whethe!# if the acc$sed %new

what he was doing# he also %new that it was w!ongo! cont!a!y to law1 The '/Naghten !$les $se thewo!d .w!ong/ only1 In this contet the wo!d .w!ong/"ean ."o!al w!ong/ o! .legal w!ong/


13/63

..@!ongE/ in the '/Naghten !$les"eans .cont!a!y to law/1

7owe-e!#in the case of R v Windle#the 9$estion whethe! the aellant%new that what he was doing was"o!ally w!ong was not !aised as it

was not necessa!y 0 $nde! the'/Naghten !$les .w!ong/ "eans.cont!a!y to law/


14/63

Regina v Windle (!"#)

In this UB case# the aellant was cha!ged andsentenced to death fo! the "$!de! of his wifewho was insane1 The acc$sed was 4G yea!s ofage and a e!son of wea% cha!acte!1 7e was"a!!ied to a wo"an 8 yea!s yo$nge! than hi"and his "a!!iage life was not a hay one1 Thewife %ee on nagging of co""itting s$icide1 7ealways tal%ed of his "a!!iage !oble" with his

wo!%"ates1 7is wo!%"ates we!e ti!ed of hissto!y1 (-ent$ally# one of his wo!%"ates told theaellant to gi-e he! a doHen of asi!in1


15/63

One day# the aellant ga-e the wifeGG asi!in tablets1 This ca$sed he!death1 @hen he was 9$estioned by the

olice# he ad"itted that he ga-e he!GG tablets of asi!in and they said thathe wo$ld be hanged fo! that1 The docto!said that the aellant was s$e!ing

f!o" the disease of the "ind called asfolie a deux b$t was awa!e of what hewas doing was fo!bidden by law1


16/63

$t he tho$ght that he was doing he! a fa-o$! asshe always tho$ght o! nagged of co""ittings$icide1 7e %new that the act was cont!a!y to law1

It was held that the wo!d .w!ong/ !efe!s to legal

.w!ong/ and not "o!al .w!ong/# the!efo!e# he co$ldbe cha!ged fo! "$!de!1

If the said case had a!isen in 'alaysia o!Singao!e# and a dis$ncti-e -iew is acceted$nde! section 84# the 9$estion whethe! theaellant %new his act was i""o!al wo$ld besigni>cant1 On the facts# it "ight aea! to hi"that it was "o!ally !ight to %ill his wife1


17/63

7owe-e!# in Stapleton v Queen3A


18/63

In '/Naghten/s !$le the wo!d $sed isw!ong& and it "eans .cont!a!y tolaw/1

Section 84 on the othe! hand !efe!sto w!ong& o! cont!a!y to law&1

The word wrong or contrary tolaw $nde! section 84 of the PenalCode has se-e!al inte!!etations1


19/63

Da-ies= 7e said that w!ong& o! cont!a!yto law& "$st be !ead con$ncti-ely# that isyo$ ha-e to !ead o!& as and&1

'c Billo= It is s$Kcient to !o-e eithe!w!ong& o! cont!a!y& to law# the!efo!e# it"$st be !ead dis$ncti-ely acco!ding tohi"1

Indian Co$!t has also di-ided on this oint1This was !eLected in the following cases=

G Ali E


20/63

Geron Ali v Emperor3A46

Con$ncti-e -iew The aellant followed a de-iationist/s teachingfo$nded by one Bhoa! )li 3*$!$61 The g$!$ had a"ist!ess na"ed Pi!ani1 @hen the -illage!s fo$nd theg$!$ and the "ist!ess we!e not "a!!ied b$t staying

togethe!# they beca"e $no$la! in the -illage1 So*e!on )li who was -e!y loyal to the" called the" asfathe! and "othe!# co"lained to the g$!$ abo$t the-illage!s attit$de1 The g$!$ told *e!on )li to b!ingthei! heads to hi"1 7e beheaded one of the -illage!

and his da$ghte! 1 7e b!o$ght the two heads to hisg$!$ and said# fathe!# yo$ as% "e fo! one h$"anhead# I !esent two&1 The defence leaded wasinsanity1


21/63

The Calc$tta 7igh Co$!t was of the -iew that thewo!d w!ong o! cont!a!y to law sho$ld be !eadcon$ncti-ely i1e1 the acc$sed "$st !o-ed that hedid not %now what he was doing was cont!a!y tolaw and also did not %now it was w!ong1

The acc$sed did not %now that what he was doing

was w!ong M he conside!ed that he was doing a"e!ito!io$s act which 9$ali>ed hi" fo! hea-en1

The acc$sed alsodid not %now what he wasdoingwas cont!a!y to law M he %illedthese e!sons

witho$t any eo!t of concealing it1 The co$!t was satis>ed that *e!on )li f$l>lled both

!e9$i!e"ents1

hi ddi h d h i


22/63

Ashiruddin Ahmed v The King3A4A6

Dis$ncti-e -iew The aellant in his e-idence said that

he hea!d a -oice f!o" hea-en sayingthat his .o!ban/ 3sac!i>ce6 was not

acceted by *od1 7e said that the-oice told hi" to !elace a .o!ban/with his own child and he eec$ted it1

It was done in the "os9$e1 )cco!dingto his defence he was s$e!ing f!o"$nso$ndness of "ind1


23/63

The $dge"ent was that whethe! as a!es$lt of his $nso$ndness of "ind he was!e-ented f!o" %nowing whethe! his act

was w!ong o! cont!a!y to law1 +!o" thefact# he %new that his act was cont!a!y tolaw beca$se afte! the %illing he went to his$ncle/s ho$se b$t when he a!!i-ed the!e

his $ncle was tal%ing with a olice"an1 7ecalled his $ncle to a die!ent lace andtold hi" the whole sto!y1


24/63

The test $sed was dis$ncti-e testand he was gi-en !otection $nde!section 84 on the basis that he was

incaable of %nowing that his act wasw!ong1

In concl$sion# in India the!e a!e two

-iew as held in Geron AliandAshiruddin1


25/63

$%$&$NT' IN'ANIT* +ND$ '.- /0

Nothing is an

oence 2at theti"e

of doing it

D$e to $nso$ndnessof "ind

Incaable

of %nowing

@!ong o! cont!a!y

to law


26/63

Nothing is an o1ence

:i%e all the se-e!al ecetions in Chate! I of

the Penal Code# insanity if s$ccessf$lly leaded

oe!ates as a co"lete defence to all oences1The!e is howe-e!# one signi>cant die!encebetween insanity and othe! defences1 Theacc$sed when ac9$itted $nde! the defence of

insanity will no!"ally be detained in a "entalinstit$tion at the disc!etion of the !esident inSingao!e and the ,ang di Pe!t$an )gong in'alaysia1


27/63

At the time of doing it

Unde! both the '/Naghten !$les andsection 84 of the Penal Code# theacc$sed "$st be s$e!ing f!o" the!e9$isite "ental disability at the ti"ehe co""its the alleged oence1 It is

9$ite ob-io$s that e-idence of "entaldisability "$st nesessa!ily be basedon "edical o! sychiat!ic ea"ination1


28/63

7owe-e! if the acc$sed s$e!ing f!o" a "entaldiso!de! that by itself was ins$Kcient to b!inghi" within the defence of insanity# he will not getthe bene>t of the defence if that diso!de! was

agg!a-ated by alcohol cons$"ed $st !io! to thealleged co""ission of the oence e-entho$ghs$ch co"bination "ay ha-e !es$lted in a lac% ofthe !e9$isite %nowledge seci>ed in the defence

of insanity1 In s$ch a case# the ti"e of assess"entof the acc$sed/s "ental caacity is i""ediatelybefo!e he cons$"es the alcohol# i1e1 befo!e theact$al co""ission of the alleged oence1


29/63

Insanity as a defence "ay be d$e toany ca$se and "ay be e!"anent o!te"o!a!y# b$t it is essential that the

acc$sed sho$ld be s$e!ing f!o"insanity at the ti"e of doing the actco"lained of1


30/63

+nsoundness of mind

It is a state when the "ind does not f$nction

!oe!ly1 It "ay "anifest in so "any ways eg1Idiocy# l$nacy# i"becility# del$sions# de!ange"ents#>ts etc1 The!e is no ha!d and fast !$le o! li"it withinwhich a "an can be said to be of so$nd "ind1

) "an can be said of $nso$nd "ind if he cannot$nde!stand othe!s# cannot e!ess hi"self# cannot

$dge the conse9$ences of his acts o! disting$ishbetween good and bad# !ight and w!ong1


31/63

In othe! wo!ds# a e!son is of $nso$nd "indwhose "ental fac$lties ha-e been i"ai!edand has beco"e destit$te 3oo!6 of !eason#intelligibility and cohe!ence of tho$ght1

This is to say that he has lost his "entalbalance o! e9$ilib!i$"1

It is not e-e!y deg!ee of "ental disease o!

dise9$ilib!i$" that can a-oid !esonsibility10Tri2edi 3A86


32/63

@hat is the die!ence between $nso$ndness of"ind in section 84 and disease of the "ind $nde!'/Naghten !$le To ce!tain etent they do o-e!0la1

7owe-e! the concet of $nso$ndness of "ind is

wide! than disease of the "ind ca$sing a defect of!eason1

Section 84 wo$ld not only incl$de diseases of the"ind b$t also "ental de>ciency not !es$lting f!o"

disease of the "ind1 +o! eg1 it wo$ld co-e! b!$tishst$idity witho$t !ational owe! which is ecl$ded$nde! '/Naghten !$le1


33/63

'/Naghten !$les $sed the te!" .defect of!eason f!o" disease of the "ind/1

) .defect of !eason/ is "o!e than a "o"enta!yconf$sion o! absent0"indednessJ a de!i-ation of

!easoning owe! is !e9$i!ed1

The !e9$i!e"ent that the "ental i"ai!"ent sho$ldbe ca$sed by disease& "$st be e"hasiHed1 )"alf$nctioning of the "ind of t!ansito!y eect

ca$sed by the alication to the body of s$ch.ete!nal/ facto! as -iolence# d!$gs# incl$dinganaesthetic and hynotic inL$ences cannot beconside!ed as constit$ting .disease of the "ind/1


34/63

The sa"e is e9$ally t!$e of a diabeticwho gets into a hyoglyce"ic co"aas a !es$lt of failing to ta%e food afte!

ta%ing ins$lin13 since the fail$!e tota%e food to co$nte!act the ins$lin isan .ete!nal/facto!61 It wo$ld howe-e!

be die!ent if the diabetes itselfca$sed the co"a1


35/63

Disease o! $nso$ndness of "ind will $s$ally ha-eto be !o-ed by "edical e-idence1 'entaldiseases li%e schiHoh!enia# a!anoia o! l$nacy a!eclassi>ed as "edical insanity that can also co"e$nde! the defence of $nso$ndness of "ind#!o-ided that othe! conditions in section 84 a!e

satis>ed1 The enti!e "ental histo!y of the acc$sed will be

!ele-ant 3both befo!e and afte!6 to the iss$e of theacc$sed/s insanity at the a!tic$la! ti"e of the

co""ission of the alleged oence# and also anye-idence of "ental diso!de! in nea! !elati-es o!ancesto!s will be li%ewise conside!ed e!tinents$bstantiating e-idence1


36/63

Del$sions# hall$cinations and ill$sions"ay all occ$! as sy"to"s ofde"entia o! othe! sychotic illness1

In MNaghten case# the acc$sed wass$e!ing f!o" "o!bid insane del$sionsof e!sec$tion by Si! Robe!t Peel1 7e

wanted to shoot Si! Robe!t Pellb$t by"ista%e# shot his sec!eta!y1

Si"ila!ly inAshiruddin Ahmed.


37/63

Lipman/s case 3AG6

The acc$sed too% so"e1 7e was then $nde!the ill$sion of descending to the cente! ofthe ea!th and being attac%ed by sna%es1 In

atte"ting to >ght o the sna%es# he %illedthe -icti" who s$e!ed two blows on thehead b$t died of ashyia as a !es$lt ofbed sheet being c!a""ed into he! "o$th1

7e said that he had no %nowledge of whathe was doing and no intention to %ill o! dog!ie-o$s bodily ha!"1


38/63

It was held that he was not liable ashe was $nde! the inL$ence of"o!bid del$sion1

In the abo-e case# we can say that#"o!bid del$sion can be $sed as adefence only when it aected his

"ind to do the w!ongf$l act1


39/63

Inusoh v !!# the acc$sed !an a"o%fo! no aa!ent !eason# %illing fo$!eole1 )ny o!dina!y "an "ight well

be !o"ted to say .this is the wo!%of "ad"an&1

Relying on the defence of mania# the

con-iction of the acc$sed was9$ashed1


40/63

In the (nglish case of Kemp3A


41/63

In !! v Ro"man #in usoh 3AA


42/63

In his lo!dshi/s -iew# this disease at thisstage is $!ely hysical# when itinte!fe!es with the b!ain cells# it thenbeco"es a disease of the "ind1

In the Indian case of Re !appathiAmmal 3A


43/63

Inca3able of 4nowing

The $nso$ndness of "ind $nde! section84 o! the disease of the "ind $nde!

'/Naghten "$st aect legal !esonsibilitybefo!e the defence can s$cceed1 It "$sti"ai! the cogniti-e fac$lties as oosedto the e"otional-olitional caacities1 3It

ecl$des fo! instance i!!esistible i"$lse61


44/63

The s$ccess of an i!!esistible i"$lsedefence deends on the facts of the case1+o! ea"le# ass$"e that a child has been"olested1 If the child/s "othe! shoots and %ills the

s$sected "oleste!# the "othe! co$ld a!g$e thatshe was so en!aged by the -iolation of he! childthat she was $nable to cont!ol he! actions1 The"othe! need notha-e been diagnosed as "entally ill1

Rathe!# she wo$ld need to show that she was

"entally ill at the ti"e of the shooting and that theillness i"ai!ed he! self0cont!ol1


45/63

In so"e states# the i!!esistible i"$lsedefence has ne-e! been adoted1 In othe!s# ithas been adoted and s$bse9$entlywithd!awn1 @he!e it has been !eected# the

!easons a!e gene!ally the sa"e= to !e-ent

sane e!sons f!o" escaing liabilitysi"ly beca$se they we!e $nable to cont!ol

thei! actions1


46/63

In Sinnasam$ v !! 3A


47/63

It can be said that# the i!!esistiblei"$lse cannot be a defence $nde!section 841


48/63

The !easoning ability of the acc$sed"$st be aectedJ it is not eno$ghthat he si"ly failed to $se owe!s of

!easoning which he had1 This asectof the insanity test is classicallyill$st!ati-e of the law/s basic !e"ise

of !esonsibility1 *$ilt cannot beadd$ced in the absence of thecaacity to !eason1


49/63

5rong or contrary to law

The acc$sed "$st then go on to showthat beca$se of his insanity eithe! he

did not %now the nat$!e of his act o! ifhe did %now it# he did not %now eithe!he was doing w!ong 3$nde!

'/Naghten/s case and section 846 o!cont!a!y to law 3$nde! o$! section 84only61


50/63

CON;UNCTI( )NDDIS;UNCTI( )PPRO)C7 IN

'):),SI))RO -1 PP 3AQ?6

;USO7 -1 PP 3AQ56


51/63

In 'alaysia# both con$ncti-e and dis$ncti-ea!oach was alied by the $dges in thefollowing cases1

A"ro v !!)cc$sed# li-ing in Singao!e# "ade a b$siness withanothe! e!son in 'alaysia1 One day# at abo$t a1"#he was fo$nd sitting ast!ide the deceased andstabbed hi" to death 3inLicted so"e ?G stab

wo$nds61 7e ca$sed in$!ies to the !esc$e!s also1 7isdefence was he acted d$e to $nso$ndness of "ind1


52/63

Tho"son C1; oined that $nde! section 84#the $nso$ndness of "ind "$st lead to one ofthe two conse9$ences# eithe! that the acc$sede!son incaable of %nowing the nat$!e of his

act o! that he is incaable of %nowing that hisact was w!ong o! cont!a!y to law1 The!efo!e#his aeal was dis"issed by the co$!t1

+!o" this case# he cannot !aise the defence$nde! section 84 beca$se he failed to f$l>llthe said !e9$i!e"ents1


53/63

Inusoh v !!# the aellant wentbe!se!% 3a"$%6 and %illed his siste! inlaw# his two child!en and a yo$ng

st!ange! when he beca"e -iolent1 7ewas con-icted $nde! section 5G? on"$!de!1 On aeal# he contended

that he was not ha-ing any "oti-eand he !aised $ the defence ofinsanity $nde! section 841


54/63

It is s$Kcient to establish insanity $nde!section 84# if the acc$sed act as a !es$lt of$nso$ndness "ind and does not %now whathe did was w!ong1

The $dge did not "ention the h!ase.cont!a!y to law/# the!efo!e we can ass$"ethat the $dge alied dis$ncti-e a!oach1

7e was fo$nd not g$ilty as he lost cont!olhi"self1


55/63

The co$!t held that the acc$sed wass$e!ing f!o" "ania which wo$ld!od$ce in hi" an i!!esistible i"$lse

to do what he did# and that altho$ghi!!esistible i"$lse is no defence# thetye of "ania f!o" which it s!ings

gene!ally !od$ces the conse9$encethat the s$e!e! does not %now whathe is doing is w!ong1


56/63

&oti2e

In %eo Ah Seng v. !! 3AQ6# theacc$sed %illed his th!ee f!iendswitho$t aa!ent "oti-e1 The t!ial

$dge has "isdi!ected the $!y bysaying that e-e!y "an is !es$"edto intend to %now the nat$!al and

!obable conse9$ences of his act1This was a w!ong di!ection1 Theaellant aeals to +ede!al co$!t1


57/63

The co$!t said that altho$gh the "oti-ewas not -e!y i"o!tant in "$!de!# the

$!y/s attention sho$ld ha-e been d!awn

to the fact that lac% of "oti-e sho$ld beconside!ed as a lac% of intention1

The!efo!e# if the!e was no "oti-e# the!ewas no intention and "ost !obably that

he was insane1 The!efo!e# the "oti-esho$ld be conside!ed by the co$!t1


58/63

In deciding the case# the co$!t "$st conside!the "oti-e of the acc$sed e!son since the"oti-e and intention a!e inte!!elated1

In Goh %o&e v !! 3AG6# the aellant %illedand dis"e"be!ed the body of his own son1 7e$t the dis"e"be!ed body into a sac%1 Thesac% was fo$nd Loating in the 'alacca Ri-e!17e!e again# the iss$e a!ose on the "isdi!ection

of the $dge to the $!y1 The!e was fail$!e toelain to the $!y the "edical e-idence andalso aellant/s fa"ily histo!y1


59/63

+o! ea"le that two of the aellant/s sonswe!e "ental atients# one died and "entallyinsane and anothe! was ad"itted to "entalhosital fo! th!ee ti"es s$e!ing f!o" "ental!oble"1 The case was that the %illing was"oti-eless and this was not ointed o$t tothe $!y1

The!efo!e# in this case# all the !ele-antinfo!"ation "$st be disclosed to the $!y andthe!e sho$ld not be "isdi!ected to the $!y1


60/63

In 'hia 'han (ah v The King 3A586#the acc$sed was cha!ged fo! "$!de!and the defence contended that the!e

was no "oti-e1 The -icti" was the one!eo!ted to hi" as atte"ting to"olest his wife1

The co$!t held that the acc$sed wasliable and the!eby con-icted hi" as thedefence of insanity was not acceted1


61/63

6+D$N /

On the acc$sed

asis of the !es$"tion0sane alance of !obabilities

Section G< of (-idence )ct


62/63

Unde! the '/ Naghten !$les in (ngland the b$!denof !o-ing insanity !ests on the acc$sed1

This !$le has its basis on the !es$"tion that ae!son is !es$"ed sane $ntil the cont!a!y is

!o-ed1 The standa!d of s$ch !oof is on the balance of

!obabilities# i1e no highe! than in a ci-il case1

The osition is si"ila! locally1 This concl$sion is

!eached tho$gh a co"bination of 3a) section 7"of a $2idence Actdealing with the !oof ofdefences# and 3b6 a reliance u3on the $nglishcases on the b$!den of !oof of insanity1


63/63

In !! v %uvara)# section G< of the 'alayan 3now'alaysia6 (-idence )ct which is also section G

Documents

DEFENCE OF INSANITY 1.ppt