LB2303 - Criminal Law I
Lecture 7B - Defence of Insanity
Introduction
A mental condition wherein a person does not understand the nature of the act or
whatever that he/she is doing is wrong or contrary to the law. An insane person who
commits an offense is not guilty by reason of insanity due to :
1. Absent of mens rea in committing a crime
2. One does not understand nor know what he/she was doing
3. Did not know that the acts were wrong
4. Did not know the effect and result of he/she did is contrary to the law
This defense can be found in Section 84 of Brunei Penal Code. The successful
pleading of which results in the accused acquittal on the ground of
insanity/unsoundness of mind.
Insane person may compromise of the following people :
1. An idiot
2. One who is suffering from defective mental capacity on account of illness
3. A lunatic person or a madman
4. One who suffers from defective mental account on account of intoxication
An Idiot
One who from birth had defective mental capacity
Defective Mental Capacity due to Illness
Conditions Liability
Non Compos Mentis (not sane) Not liable
R v Sullivan [1984]
The accused kicked and injured a man during a minor epileptic fit. He pleaded
defense of insanity. The House of Lords allowed him the defense because epileptic
was a disease of the mind because the defendant’s mental faculties were damaged to
the extent of causing a defect of reason
Conditions Liability
Sub-Normal Intellect (low IQ) Liable
PP v Rozman bin Jusoh & Anor [1995]
The accused was convicted for drug trafficking by the trial court. He appealed on the
ground that he should be allowed to plead the defense of insanity because he was of
sub-normal intellect. The court held that subnormal intellect does not amount to
unsoundness of mind.
Lunatic Person
One who become insane and whose incapacity might be or was temporary or
intermittent.
R v Kemp [1957]
The accused hit his wife with a hammer, causing grievous bodily harm. He was
suffering a condition which restricted the blood flow to the brain which caused
temporary blackouts. Evidence showed that he was devoted to his wife, and could not
remember picking up the hammer or attacking her. The court allowed him the defense
of insanity.
Defective Mental Account on Account of Intoxication
Section 85 - Brunei Penal Code
(1) Intoxication cannot be used as a defense to any criminal charges
(2) Intoxication can be used as a defense to any criminal charges if :
a. A person did not know that such act or omission was wrong
b. person did not know what he was doing
c. Other situations :
I. Involuntary intoxication
II. Intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such set or
omission
Aladdin v Public Prosecutor [1964]
The appellant had run around the wedding feast slashing guests and causing death of
a person. He was convicted of murder and appeal. It was argued on behalf of the
appellant that he temporarily insane due to intoxication. However, evidences
presented shows that the appellant knew what he was doing and knew that it was
wrong. The conviction stands.
The M’Naghten Rules
Legal Principles :
1. Everyone is presumed sane
2. To rebut this presumption, the accused must prove on the balance of
probability, when the offense was committed, they were suffering from a defect of
reason caused by a disease of the mind
3. They did not know the nature and quality of their act
4. They did not know what they were doing was wrong in law
R v M’Naghten [1843]
The accused wanted to kill Sir Robert Peel but he killed Peel’s private secretary
instead. The court acquitted him on the basis of insanity whereby he was suffering
from insanity but was committed to a hospital.
Public Prosecutor v Arcala [1993]
An amah was employed for a family whose youngest child was 18 month old boy
where the defendant has to look after. Two days later, the defendant killed the boy
and was convicted with murder. At the time of the killing, the defendant was suffering
from schizophrenia that she was incapable of knowing the nature of her act or that
what she was doing was wrong.
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Rashid bin Haji Ishak [2002]
The defendant pleaded guilty of causing hurt to his wife and child. However, he raised
the defense of insanity which was evidenced by medical reports stating that he has
been suffering from schizophrenia and that he was at a state of unsound mind at the
time he committed the offense.
Public Prosecutor v Sinting binti Suntai [1988]
The defendant was charged with murder of one of her children and causing grievous
hurt to her other two children. The defendant raised the defense of insanity, claiming
that she had suffered from mental problems since childhood, that she had previously
suffered from black-outs and had seen apparitions. Medical evidence shows that she
was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and she was likely to have also
been suffering from premenstrual tension at the time of the attack. The court held that
she is not liable due to at the time of the commission, she was incapable by reason of
unsoundness of mind knowing the nature of the act or what she was doing was wrong
and contrary to law.
Section 84 of Brunei Penal Code
In order use this section for defense, the accused must satisfy these requirements :
1. At the time of an offense, he or she was suffering from insanity or
unsoundness of mind
2. Which negated his or her capacity to know
3. The nature of the act, or that act was either wrong or contrary to law
First Element
The accused must suffered from ‘unsoundness of mind’ which impaired their capacity
to know the nature of their conduct or to know that it was either wrong or contrary to
law.
PP v Mya Than [2013]
The accused was charged of murder. However, the court acquitted the accused on the
basis at the time the offense was committed, he was suffering from schizophrenia.
Selvaraju Mudaliar a/l Kalliparal v PP [2010]
The accused was a schizophrenic inmate of a drug rehabilitation centre. He was
convicted for the murder of a fellow inmate. He raised the defense of insanity due to
he could not remember whether he had taken his medication, and if so, the required
dosage at the time he assaulted the victim. The court held that aside from medical
evidence and experts, his conduct before and after should also be considered. The
defense of insanity allowed.
Jusoh v Public Prosecutor [1963]
The appellant was charged of murder. She suddenly ran amok and slashed his
sister-in-law, and her two young children to death with parang then killed a man and
inflicted severe injuries to two young men who led villagers in securing the appellant.
A medical officer saw the appellant after two hours after his arrest described him as
‘in a daze’ and ‘overwhelmed with woe’. The defense of insanity was allowed.
Abdul Razak bin Dalek v PP [2010]
The accused was charged of murder. The defense raised by the accused was that he
was suffering from non-insane automatism at the time of commission of murder. This
defense was based on the evidence of one of the witnesses that saw the accused
hitting his head against the wall after the incident. The charged of murder is upheld.
PP v Arokiasamy a/l Alphonso [2008]
The accused confessed and charged of murder of his sister-in-law. He raised the
defense of insanity on the basis that he had a serious heart disease and had
experienced a change of personality after undergoing heart surgery in 1998. This was
supported by his wife who stated that he was not an aggressive person before
underwent the surgery. The court acquitted the accused.
John a/l Nyumbei v PP [2007]
The accused had killed an 18 year old girl and had sexual intercourse with the corpse.
He was charged of murder. He raised the defense of insanity contending that a certain
‘Jimmy’ had threatened his life if he did not kill someone and take his head. The
Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for murder.
PP v Othman bin A Aziz [2013]
The accused had stabbed and slashed a person leading to his death. He raised the
defense of insanity from the charge of murder. However, the defense is disallowed
due to his failure to prove that he was insane at the time of murder was committed.
Ratanlal v State of Madya Paresh [1971]
The appellant set fire to the grass. He was asked why he did it, he said “I burnt it; do
whatever you want”. He was charged of mischief by fire. The court held that the
appellant was insane and acquitted him.
Kamala Bhuniya v State of Wesr Bengal [2006]
The accused attempted murder of her husband with axe. She was charged but raised
the defense of insanity at the time of the accident. The accused made no attempt to
flee away nor she made any attempt to remove incriminating weapon. Due to absence
of mens rea, the court acquitted her on the basis of insanity at the time of commission.
Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujurat [1964]
The accused was charged for murder of his wife by stabbing her 44 times. The
accused raised the defense of insanity. The court rejected the defense on the ground
that the statement made to the police shows no sign of insanity.
Mimi Wong & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1972]
Mimi Wong appealed against her conviction of murder on the basis that she was
suffering from encephalitis which was only diagnosed some time after the killing. The
appealed was dismissed on the ground that she was not proved to be suffering from
encephalitis at the time of killing and her conditions was not not such as to
substantially impair her mental responsibility for her acts.
Second and Third Elements
The accused is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was either or
contrary to law. A person is not liable of criminal responsibility because he or she is
of unsound mind. It must be shown the unsoundness of mind was of a kind and
severity which destroyed the accused capacity to know the nature of the act, or that it
was either wrong or contrary to law.
Dourin bin Murah v PP [2013]
The accused had shot the deceased twice when she was on ground asking for mercy.
After shooting, the accused threatened the deceased daughter and husband with
violence before hitting another victim. He was convicted of murder. He appealed by
raising the defense of insanity which it was dismissed.
Ibrahim bin Mohd v PP [2013]
The accused admitted killing the deceased by carrying out “God’s mission” based on
the dreams he had and other phenomena as guidance from God. He was charged of
murder. On appeal, he raised the defense of insanity which was rejected due to
evidence of medical examination found him to be normal and conscious of his act at
the time of committing the crime.
Geron Ali v Emperor [1940]
The court decided that the accused knew the nature of his act, however, did not know
that he was doing was contrary to law. He killed these persons without any effort of
concealment and he did not try to escape after doing this. Hence, it would suffice to
note that an accused can still get the protection of Section 84 even if he knows the
nature of his act but obviously he cannot be held criminally liable in as much as he
did not know that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
Public Prosecutor v Rozman bin Jusoh & Anor [1995]
The respondent who was intellectually disabled involved in drug trafficking was
found to have the intention to traffic in drugs despite his subnormal intellect and being
easily manipulated by others. His defense of insanity failed as he knew it was contrary
to law to sell drugs.
Public Prosecutor v Nageswari [1994]
It was held that the medical evidence is relevant for the accused to rely upon in order
to establish the insanity of the accused at the time of commission of the crime. The
accused needs to show either one of two things; i) the accused did not know what he
was doing. ii) the accused knew what he was doing but did not know that it was either
wrong or contrary to law.
Jusoh v Public Prosecutor [1963]
It was declared that it is sufficient to use defense under Section 84 if the accused by
reason of unsoundness of mind did not know what he was doing was wrong. The
judge adopted a disjunctive approach to phrase ‘wrong or contrary to law’ stated in
Section 84 of the Penal Code.
Ashiruddin v King [1949]
The accused had killed his son while acting under the delusion of a dream believing it
to be right. The accused had dream that he was commanded by someone to sacrifice
his son of five years. The next morning, the next morning the accused killed his son
by thrusting a knife in his throat. The court allowed the defense of insanity as he
fulfilled the elements stated in Section 84.