The definition
of insanity is not laid down by statute but has to be gathered from the cases.
Definition:
- Insanity refers to unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility.
- It is also a disease, defect, or condition of the mind that renders one unable to understand the nature of a criminal act or the fact that it is wrong or to conform one's conduct to the requirements of the law being violated.
- Insanity may also be the inability
to understand and participate in legal proceedings brought against one.
In Uganda, the law applicable with regard to insanity
includes the following;
- The Mental Treatment Act Cap 279
- The Magistrates Courts Act Cap 16
- The Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23
- The Penal Code Act Cap
120
The Mental Treatment Act Cap 279 deals with people of unsound mind but has not committed any crimes.
The Act specifies the roles played by members of the
community and the court in dealing with people of unsound mind.
Specifically, section 2 of the Act bestows on any person the duty to report to the Magistrate of any person with unsound mind where the Magistrate as well carries out an inquiry and ounce satisfied, refers the person for treatment in a mental hospital.
What happens
to the person of unsound mind who commits an offence?
Under Part XIII
of the Magistrates Courts Act, the
procedure in case of the insanity or other incapacity of an accused person is
laid down.
Section 117
of the Act states that where any act or omission is charged against any person
as an offence, and it is given in evidence on the trial that he or she was
insane so as not to be responsible for his or her action at the time when the
act was done or omission made, and appears to the court that the accused was
insane at the time when the act or made the omission, it’s should make a
special finding to the effect that the accused is not guilty of the act or
omission charged by reason of insanity.
The same procedure is provided for under part VI of the TIA for trials in the High court. It’s provided specifically
under sections 45 to 49.
Justice Lameck
N. Mukasa in Criminal Appeal No. 23
Of 2013 Kawooya Ronny v Uganda points
in details the applications of the provisions highlighted above.
Insanity as a defence is provided for under section 11 PCA where a person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he or she is through any disease affecting his or her mind incapable of understanding what he or she is doing or of knowing that he or she ought not to do the act or make the omission;
But a person may be criminally responsible for an act
or omission, although his or her mind is affected by the disease, if that disease
does not, in fact, produce upon his or her mind one or other of the effects
mentioned in this section in reference to that act or omission.
The understanding of the section is in accordance to
the M’Naghten Test, developed in an
1843 English case where an offender is insane under this test if mental illness
prevents him or her from knowing the difference between right and wrong.
M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 8 Eng. Rep. 718
Defendant was charged with the murder of Edward Drummond, secretary to the Prime Minister. Defendant mistook Drummond for Peel and shot him by mistake.
At the time of his arrest, he told police that he came to London to murder the Prime Minister because
“The Tories in my city follow and persecute
me wherever I go, and have destroyed my peace of mind. They do everything in their
power to harass and persecute me; in fact they wish to murder me.”
Defense counsel introduced expert and lay witnesses who testified about Defendant’s obsession with delusions and that he suffered from acute insanity.
The judge gave the jury an instruction regarding his lack
of understanding upon commission of the act in question. The jury reached a
verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Following the trial, there was a meeting at the House
of Lords attended by fifteen judges in order to determine the standards for the
insanity defense.
The Issue was. What is the proper instruction for the
jury in a case where the insanity defense is used?
Lord Chief Justice Tindal delivered the opinion for the House of Lords and held that Jurors should be instructed that every man is presumed sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes.
Therefore, in
order to establish an insanity defence, it must be clearly proven that at the
time of the act, the accused was under such a defect of reason from disease of
the mind that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was
committing; or if he did know, he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
This has generally been presented to the court as a standard in determining whether the accused at the time of doing the act knew the difference between right and wrong.
This standard should be used in
conjunction with observations made of the accused under the relevant
circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
M'Naghten Rules for when insanity can be used as a defense
Disease of the Mind:
It doesn't have to be a 'brain' condition. It could
be "any disease which produces a malfunctioning of the mind." But it
must be a ‘disease’; the defense can't be used if you just get carried away.
A devoted husband of previous good character made an entirely motiveless and irrational violent attack upon his wife with a hammer.
He was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. He suffered from hardenings of the arteries which lead to a congestion of blood in the brain.
This caused a
temporary lack of consciousness, so that he was not conscious that he picked up
the hammer or that he was striking his wife with it. He sought to raise the defense
of automatism.
Held: The
hardening of the arteries was a “disease of the mind” within the M'Naghten Rules and therefore he could
not rely on the defense of automatism.
Devlin J:-
"It does not matter for the purposes of law, whether the defect of reason is due to degeneration of the brain or to some other form of mental derangement. That may be a matter of importance medically, but it is of no importance to the law, which merely has to consider the state of mind in which the accused is, not how he got there.
Defect of reason.
For a finding of insanity, the defendant must suffer from a defect of reason. Mere forgetfulness or absent-mindedness is not sufficient.
Insanity requires the defect of reason to be caused by a disease of
the mind.
In Clarke
[1972] 1 All ER 219 Mrs. Clarke,
A 58 year old woman, absent-mindedly placed a jar of mincemeat, a jar of coffee and some butter into her bag whilst shopping in a supermarket.
She had no recollection of placing the items in her bag. Medical evidence was given at her trial which stated that she was suffering from depression and was diabetic.
The trial judge ruled that this raised the defence of insanity. At this point Mrs. Clarke changed her plea to guilty and then appealed against the judge's finding of insanity.
It was held that short periods of absent-mindedness fell far short of amounting to a defect of reason.
Knowledge of the Nature and Quality of the act:
The defense of insanity covers situations where the defendant doesn't understand what they are physically doing.
In this situation, the accused must not know that he was doing the act at all, that he was incapable of foreseeing the result, or that he was incapable of appreciating the circumstances.
See the case of George
Codere (1917) 12 Cr. App. R 21.
Knowledge that the act was wrong:
The defense of insanity is available where the defendant can't understand that his act or omission is a criminal act.
This
phrase is the alternative to the knowledge of the nature and quality of the act. It
inquires of the accused whether he knew that what he was doing was contrary to
law.
R v Windle
[1952] 2QB 826
The appellant killed his wife. She was suicidal and
he administered an aspirin overdose. Medical evidence supported the view that
he was suffering from a mental condition at the time of the crime. On arrest he
said to the police;
"I suppose they will hang me for this".
The trial judge refused to allow the defense of
insanity to be put before the jury as he had demonstrated that he realized that
what he was doing was unlawful.
The appeal was dismissed arguing that the trial judge
was correct to refuse the defense of insanity since Wrong, for the purposes of
the M'Naghten rules, meant unlawful. It did not matter that he thought his
actions were not morally wrong.
Presumption of Sanity :( Section 10 of the Penal Code Act)
Justice Tindal pointed out that every man is presumed sane.
However, sanity is a rebuttable presumption and the burden of proof is on
the party rebutting it; the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities,
that is to say, that mental incapacity is more likely than unlikely.
Under section
10 of the PCA, every person is
presumed to be of sound mind and to have been of sound mind at any time which
comes in question until the contrary is proved.
The initial burden of going forward lies with the
accused. The accused is required to raise an insanity defense by presenting
evidence that fairly raises doubt that, at the time of the alleged offence,
he or she lacked the capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or
her act or to confirm his/ her act to the requirements of the law.