New Zealand Law/Criminal/Insanity

Definition

Person 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

R v Macmillan

• Facts

Macmilian was charged with attempting to break out of Mt Eden prison. Evidence of schizophrenia.

• Held

1. 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.
2. The tests of the accused’s knowledge of moral wrongfulness is subjective.
3. 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

• Facts

1. Schoolboy with Kleine-Levin syndrome.
2. Expert said not automatism or disease of mind.

• Held

1. Judge can receive expert evidence but must categorise himself.
2. Automatism and Disease of the Mind are legal not medical terms.
3. If the malfunction is internal and the risk of recurrence is high – the Court is entitled to order treatment.
4. 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.)
5. Nevertheless, prosecution had not proven that Bannin had an intention to commit a crime when he entered the house.

R v Green

• Facts

1. Green shot policeman, under the belief that the KGB were about to enter and kidnap him.
2. At trial, the Crown raised all evidence of insanity.

• Held

1. Unfair for Crown to adduce evidence of insanity
2. New trial ordered.

R v Hamblyn

• Facts

1. Def convicted of theft.
2. Evidence of multiple personalty disorder.
3. Expert evidence disagreed as to whether at the relevant time, appellant was incapable of understanding nature and quality of act.

• Held

1. Not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that appellant satisfied either limb.
2. 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

• Facts

Evidence that 18 year old defendant had retarded personality and social skills.

• Held

1. Insane automatism (applying Rabey v The Queen 1980 2 SCR 513, Supreme Court of Canada)
2. The only identified precipitating event was argument with boyfriend.