Criminal Law – Lecture 4 Summary
INSANITY
• LEGAL term, not medical term
• now called “suffering from a mental disorder”
• immaterial if accused had A/R and M/R: if mental disorder, then not criminally responsible
1. Mental condition at the time of trial = fitness to stand trial
• Need to be able to instruct counsel
• Understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings
• If found unfit to stand trial, accused held in mental institution until such time as fit to stand trial
• issue can be postponed to close of Crown’s case to see if Crown has sufficient case
2. Mental condition at time of offence = Defence (Not Criminally Responsible)
s. 16(1): not criminally responsible for act or omission while suffering from a mental disorder if incapable
of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong
“Suffering from a mental disorder”
• incapacity has to stem from a mental disorder
• mental disorder means a disease of the mind (not brain)
• anything that impairs the functioning of the mind can be a disease of the mind
• origin doesn’t matter, can be physical or psychological
Appreciate (wider than “know”) the nature and quality of the act
• “nature” – bare physical nature
• “quality” – e.g., that it will cause death
Know that it was wrong
• R. v. Chaulk: “wrong” means morally wrong, not legally wrong
s. 16(2) - presumption in favour of sanity
presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder until contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities
s.16(3) burden to prove mental disorder is on whichever side raises the issue
• R. v. Swain: Crown cannot raise mental disorder unless accused puts mental capacity in issue
• so generally up to Accused to raise the defence
Disposition
• if accused found not responsible by reason of mental disorder (i.e., insane), disposition determined
at end of trial
• can be held for indefinite period until found safe to release
• custody reviewed periodically
• possible to have outright release
• Insanity generally used only for most serious offences (murder) 2
AUTOMATISM
• a mind/body split “dissociative state”
• conscious mind not directing the bodily movements
• e.g., reflex actions, moving in sleep, epileptic seizure
• accused has neither M/R nor A/R (not a “willed act”)
• need medical evidence to support
2 Types of Automatism:
1. Sane automatism
• complete acquittal – accused walks
2. Insane automatism
• dissociative state stems from a mental disorder “disease of mind”
• treated under insanity rules
To establish if sane or insane automatism:
• internal/external approach
• if state of automatism brought on by internal malfunction/weakness = insane automatism
• continuing danger approach (Parks)
• what should be done with this person:on the street or in custody?
• if continuing danger to society = insane automatism
R. v. Parks
• asleep, drove 23 km., partly on 401, attacked in-laws
• sleepwalking is not a neurological, psychiatric or other illness: no medical treatment for it
• held: non-insane automatism
• might have been a different result if the onus were on accused as it is today
R. v. Stone
• law presumes that mind is directing the body, that people act voluntarily
• so that presumption has to be rebutted
• accused must prove automatism on balance of probabilities
R. v. Luedecke “sexsomnia” - sex with stranger while asleep
• sane or insane automatism?
• examine risk of recurrence of factors th
More
Less
