You have learned that sections 24 and 25 of the Criminal Code provide general defences to criminal responsibility. Thus no person can be held liable for acts or omissions which occur independently of the exercise of his will or by accident. Insanity prevents the exercise of ones will and therefore a general defence in criminal law.
Every person is presumed to be sane, until the contrary is proved. A person is exempted from criminal responsibility if it is proved that his insanity is such that:
1. he did not understand what he was doing
2. he did not know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.
3. he was incapable of controlling his action.
In this cont3ext insanity means either
a state of mental disease or
a state of natural mental infirmity 3.6 1 Mental disease
Means mental abnormalities; defect of reasoning from disease of the mind
3.6.2 Natural mental infirmity
Means a defect in mental power neither produced by his own default nor the result of disease of the mind.
3.6.3, Mental defectiveness
Means a condition of arrested or incomplete development existing before the age of 18 years, whether arising from inherent causes or induced by disease or injury.
3.6.4. M’Naghten Rules (1843)
The House of Lords (UK) formulated the M’Naghten rules to guide the Judges in determining the degree of mental defect which amounts to insanity. These rules are:
3. That every one is presumed sane until the contrary is proved
4. That it is a defence for the accused to show that he was laboring under a defect of reason, due to disease of the mind as either
(a) Not to know the nature and quality of his act, or (b) If he did know this, not to know that he was doing
wrong.
5. That if a man commits a criminal act under an insane delusion, he is under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined them to be.
3. 6.5 Proof
The burden of proof of insanity is on the accused. The requisite standard of proof has been expressed as: “ most probable” or ‘not higher than that which rests on the plaintiff or defendant in a civil proceeding’
Insanity as a defence is to be distinguished from insanity as a ground of unfitness to stand trial. A person committed for trial, who is either certified insane or is found an arraignment to be under a disability and unfit to plead, is ordered to be detained in an hospital
3.6.6 Insane delusion
Where a person commits a crime under insane delusion, he is under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as he imagined them to be. If a person under insane delusion thinks that a child is a dog and hits him with a stick, the court treats it as if the child was a dog ( akin to a defence of mistake of fact).
To succeed, the defence must prove insanity at the time of the crime.
That is to say he has to prove as follows:
That at the time he did the criminal act, he was labouring under such an insane delusion on some specific matter or matters
That if the matter or matters of his false belief were true, his act or omission would have been justified..
.
3.6.7 Irresistible impulse
This refers to insane automatism or incapacity to one’s action due to;
(a) Natural mental infirmity, or
(b) Mental disease
Read the important case of R v Omoni (1949) 12 WACA 511
Conclusion
Every person is presumed to be sane until the contrary is proved.
Insanity is a general defence but it is hardly pleaded in any other criminal charge than that of murder. The reason is obvious. On a successful plea of insanity, the accused person could be detained for more than the maximum sentence for other offences. Intoxication is a partial defence under the criminal code. It is not a valid defence at all under the sharia’h. Rather it is as crime per se.
Summary
You have learned a number of defences in this unit. Nothing could be inculpatory that is justifiable or excusable. Acts of Judicial Officers qua Judicial Office constitute a partial defence only. So also is the defence of husband and wife. Intoxication may be through drinks or drugs.
Intoxication is involuntary if it administer by the malicious or negligent act of another without consent. If the accused
Accused person had a preconceived intention to commit a crime and voluntarily got himself drunk, Lord Denning opined that “the wickedness of his mind before he got drunk is enough to condemn him´ See the case of Attorney General for N. Ireland v Gallagher. If intoxication led to a
‘state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity’ the defence may graduate to insanity. See DPP v Beard and R v Owarey. You also learned about the complex defence of insanity. The ingredients in the Mc
Naghten are not in all fours with Section 28 of the Criminal code, whch introduced technical terms such as ‘Irresistible impulse,’ ‘Insane delusion’, ‘Mental defective’ ‘Mental disease’ and ‘Natural mental infirmity’ These terms have been explained in the discourse.
Tutor Marked Assignment.
1. In relation to the defence of intoxication, critique the following cases:
Attorney General for N. Ireland v Gallagher DPP v Beard and
R v Owarey.
2. Explain the following terms Irresistible impulse,’
‘Insane delusion’,
‘Mental defective’
‘Mental disease’ and
‘Natural mental infirmity’
References
Slapper; G : The English Legal System, 7th Ed, Cavendish Publishing Ltd India
FGN: - The Criminal Code - The Penal Code
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Unit Principles of criminal responsibility Cont’d Contents
Objectives
Main Contents
3.1 Immature Age 3.2 Provocation 3.3 Necessity.
3.4 Self defence
3.5 Defence of another person.
3.6 Defence of property Conclusion
Summary References.
1. Introduction
Certain fundamental principles of law cannot be sufficiently stressed.
One of such is that the whole account which an accused person gives of the transaction must be taken and considered as a whole. After you have sifted out the mens rea, and the actus reus and have established the causal link between both of them, you still have to test the statement of the defence. This means that you should consider not only the unfavourable part of the defence but also the favourable part. Very
importantly, you should consider all the defences open to him in the same statement, For this reason any amount of time you devote to understanding the principles of criminal responsibility is worth a while.
In this unit you will still learn more defences open to persons charged with committing a crime.
2. Objectives
When you have studied this unit, you should be able to :
1. Recognise in any transaction the possible defence or defences open to the suspect
2. Explain the elements of the defence or each of the defences.
3. Demonstrate an understanding of defences of:
a. Immature age b. Provocation c. Necessity d. Self-defence
4. Evaluate the principles of liability to punishment as to an offence.
3. Main Content