#5808 - Defences Insanity - Irish Criminal Law

Insanity

Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006

s. 4 Deals with fitness to be tried. All parties entitled to raise the issue. Sent to CMH until fit.

s. 5 (1)If an accused is suffering from a mental disorder, such that they ought not to be held responsible because they A) did not know the nature and quality of their act, B) they did not know the act they were doing was wrong or C) they were unable to refrain from performing the act, then the court may return a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

(2) If the court...is satisfied that an accused person found not guilty by reason of insanity...is suffering from a mental disorder...and is in need of in-patient care and treatment in a designated centre, the court shall make an order to commit that person to a designated centre until such time as....[s.13 (7)] [the Review Board] shall...determine the question whether or not the treatment...is still required and shall make such order as it thinks proper in relation to the patient. whether for further detention, care or treatment in a designated centre or for his or her discharge whether unconditionally or subject to conditions for out-patient supervision or treatment or both.

s. 6 (1) Where a person is tried for murder and the jury, or as the case may be, the Special Criminal Court, finds that the person A) did the act alleged, B) at the time was suffering from a mental disorder and C) the mental disorder was not such as to find him not guilty by reason of insanity, but was such as to diminish substantially his or her responsibility for the act, the jury or court, as the case may be, shall find the person not guilty of that offence but guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

(2) Where a person is tried for the offence specified in sub-section 1, it shall be for the defence to establish that, by virtue of this section, that the accused is not liable to be convicted of that offence.

The State (Coughlan) v Minister for Justice (SC 1967)

Facts

• The plaintiff was certified as insane and brought to a mental hospital when he was meant to stand trial, pursuant to the provisions of the 1875 Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act

Issue

• Insanity – Fitness to plead

Judgment

• O'Daly CJ

• The provisions of relevant Act were an unconstitutional interference with the business of the court.

• It is for the Court to decide whether the accused is suffering from such insanity that renders him unfit to stand trial – the test is whether the accused has sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings of the trial, so as A) to make a proper defence, B) challenge a juror to whom they may wish to object and C) to understand the details of the evidence.

• Haugh J (concurring)

• Walsh J (concurring)

• Budd J (concurring)

• Fitzgerald J (concurring)

M'Naghten's Case (HoL 1843)

Facts

• The accused shot somebody and claimed in his defence that he was not of sound mind at the time of the shooting.

Issue

• Insanity – Elements of the Defence

Judgment (Lord Tindal CJ)

• If an accused is suffering from insane delusions and out of such insanity commits a crime motivated by the delusion that he was carrying out some revenge or attempting to do something of public benefit, he is still guilty.

• The accused is presumed to be sane until the contrary is established i.e. it must be established that at the time of committing the crime, the accused was under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it he did not know what he was doing was wrong.

• If, due to insanity, the accused erroneously believes certain facts, then he will be tried as if the facts he believed to be true, were true.

R v Antoine (HoL 2000)

Facts

• The accused was charged with murder and was found unfit to plead.

• A different jury proceeded to determine whether he had committed the act alleged against him.

• His counsel tried to raise the defence of diminished responsibility in this regard and were refused in the Court of Appeal.

Issue

• Fitness to Plead – Diminished responsibility

Judgment

• Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead (concurring – agreed with Lord Hutton)

• Lord Mackay of Clashfern (concurring – agreed with Lord Hutton)

• Lord Nolan (concurring – agreed with Lord Hutton)

• Lord Hope of Craighead (concurring – agreed with Lord Hutton)

• Lord Hutton(concurring)

• Following the finding that the accused was unfit to plead, he was not liable for conviction for murder – under the relevant act, the defence only applied where the accused was liable to be convicted for murder.

• The hearing in this regard related merely to the actus reus not the mens rea of the defence.

Doyle v Wicklow County Council (SC 1973)

Facts

• The appellant set fire to the respondents' abbatoir.

• The appellant had performed the act as a result of a mental disorder which prompted him to set fire to the building as a means of protest against the slaughter of the animals in the belief that he was justified in doing so.

Issue

• Insanity – M'Naghten Rules – Irresistible Impulse

Judgment

• Fitzgerald CJ (concurring - agreed with Griffin J

• Walsh J (concurring - agreed with Griffin J)

• Budd J (concurring - agreed with Griffin J)

• Henchy J (concurring - agreed with Griffin J)

• Griffin J

• The M'Naghten rules do not provide the sole or exclusive test for determining these issues and the opinion of the judges in that case should be read as being specifically limited to the issue of insane delusions.

• On such an issue as this, where it appears that the person who committed the damage knew the nature and quality of his act and understood its wrongfulness, morally and legally, the judge may nevertheless consider whether such person was unable to refrain from committing the damage because of defect of reason arising out of his mental illness.

People v O'Mahony (SC 1985)

Facts

• The accused was charged with murder and tried to plead the defence of diminished responsibility.

• The evidence was that his condition precluded him from stopping or withdrawing from violent acts, and this is what happened in the present case.

Issue

• Insanity – Diminished Responsibility - Irresistible Impulse

Judgment

• Finlay CJ

• The Homicide Act 1957 and the defence of diminished responsibility was introduced in England by the legislature in order to ameliorate the harshness of the laws regarding insanity and its effect was not merely declaratory.

• The Irish law does not recognise a defence of diminished responsibility and such a defence could not exist side by side with the current law concerning the defence of insanity, which recognises that insanity absolves one of criminal liability, rather than mitigating it.

• If it were established as a matter of probability, that the accused had been unable to desist from carrying out the acts of violence, he would be entitled to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity under the principle in Doyle...