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.