Legal Principles

1
Legal Principles

• Essentially a test of fairness
• It is a cardinal rule of our law that no man can
  be tried for a crime unless he is in a mental
  condition to defend himself Humphries J in R v
  Dashwood (1943)

2
The Test for UnfitnessR v Presser 1958 VR 45

• Smith J outlined seven minimum standards that the
  accused would need to equal before he can be
  tried without unfairness or injustice to him
• Be able to understand what it is he is charged
  with
• Be able to plead to the charge
• Be able to exercise his right of challenge of
  jurors
• Understand generally the nature of proceedings
  that it is an inquiry as to whether he did what
  he is charged with
• Follow the course of proceedings so as to
  understand what is going on in court in a general
  sense, though he need not understand the purpose
  of all the various court formalities

3
The Test for UnfitnessR v Presser 1958 VR 45

• Be able to understand the substantial effect of
  any evidence that may be given against him
• Be able to make his defence or answer to the
  charge this rule is further defined by the
  following considerations
• Where the accused has counsel, he or she needs to
  be able to do this through his or her counsel by
  giving any necessary instructions and be letting
  his counsel know what his or her version of the
  facts is and, if necessary, telling the court
  what it is
• The accused need not be conversant with court
  procedure and he or she need not have the mental
  capacity to make an able defence, but he or she
  must have sufficient capacity to decide what
  defence he or she will rely upon
• The accused must have sufficient capacity to be
  able to make his defence and his version of the
  facts known to the court and his counsel, if any

4
Legal Cases

• R v Ngatayi
• Test for fitness needs to be applied in a
  common-sense fashion
• need not have the mental capacity to make an
  able defence or act wisely in his own best
  interests
• Kesavarajah v The Queen
• Should have regard to the length of the trial,
  given the accuseds fitness may vary from time to
  time throughout the trial
• Eastman v R
• Presence of a delusion does not in itself render
  the accused unfit
• The presence of a mental disorder that influences
  his conduct, disrupts the ordinary flow of a
  trial or prevents him from having an amicable
  trusting relationship with counsel does not mean
  that the person is unfit to stand trial

5
Mental Illness Defence

• Sir Robert Peel

6
R v MNaghten (1843)

• Criminal law has long held that both the
  forbidden act (actus rea) and guilty intent (mens
  rea) need to be present in order to find a
  defendant guilty of a crime.
• MNaghten had been charged with the murder of
  Edward Drummond, the private secretary of the
  then Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel.
• At his trial, he was found to be suffering from
  the delusion that the conservative party was
  persecuting him, and that his life was in danger.
  
• He was acquitted on the grounds that he was
• not capable of distinguishing right from wrong
  with respect to the act which he stands charged.

7
McNaghtens Rules

• The MNaghten judgement led to considerable
  public alarm, including concern from Queen
  Victoria.
• The Law Lords formulated the MNaghtens Rules
• To establish a defence on the grounds of
  insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the
  time of the committing of the act, the party
  accused was labouring under such a defect of
  reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know
  the nature or quality of the act he was doing or
  if he did know it, that he did not know he was
  doing what was wrong.
• must be proved by the defendant on the balance
  of probabilities, rather than the usual criminal
  trial test of beyond reasonable doubt.

8
McNaghtens Rules

• Defect of reason from disease of the mind
• This is a description of the mental state at the
  time the criminal act was committed for the
  defence to be considered.
• not to know the nature and quality of the act he
  was doing
• A person does not know the nature and quality of
  his acts if he does not know the physical nature
  of what he is doing or the implication of it.
• he did not know that what he was doing was
  wrong
• This has arm of the defence is also a cognitive
  element, and speaks to the individuals ability
  to understand the moral or legal wrongfulness of
  the act.

9
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182

• The defendant had apparently suffered a mental
  breakdown following a recent separation from his
  wife. He had been without sleep, and according to
  his defence appeared to have lost all control of
  his emotions.
• The accused had administered strychnine to his
  eleven month old son, and had then attempted to
  take strychnine himself, but had been interrupted
  by the entrance of the police.
• The child died, leading to a charge of murder.
• His defence was that he was insane at the time he
  committed the act.

10
Dixon J (Porter Test)

• He was quite incapable of appreciating the
  wrongfulness of the actif through a disease or
  defect or disorder of the mind he could not think
  rationally of the reasons which to ordinary
  people make the act right or wrong. If through
  the disordered condition of the mind, he could
  not reason about the matter with a moderate
  degree of sense and composure, it may be said
  that he could not know that what he was doing was
  wrong.