Crime CXXXXVI– Insanity III
At
the start of the trial, when the defendant is charged, he is charged on the
presumption that he is sane and it is up to the defense to rebut the
presumption of sanity i.e. to prove that the defendant is not sane.
In
M'Naghten (1843) the defendant attempted to kill the Prime Minister, Sir
Robert Peel, and instead shot and killed his secretary Edward Drummond. At the
time of the killing the defendant was suffering from insane delusions i.e. a
false conception of reality.
It
was held that in all instances the jury is to be told that the defendant is
presumed to be sane at the time of the crime and this presumption is valid
until the defense can prove otherwise and in order for the defense of insanity
to be successful it must be clearly proved by way of evidence that the
defendant was laboring under such defect of reason due to a disease of the mind
that he or she was unable to know the nature and quality of the act.
In
1883 the Trial of Lunatics Act was passed and as per s2(1) of the act: -
“Where
in any indictment or information any act or omission is charged against any
person as an offence, and it is given in evidence on the trial of such person
for that offence that he was insane, so as not to be responsible, according to
law, for his actions at the time when the act was done or omission made, then,
if it appears to the jury before whom such person is tried that he did the act
or made the omission charged, but was insane as aforesaid at the time when he
did or made the same, the jury shall return (a special verdict that the
accused is not guilty by reason of insanity.)”
Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment