|
In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, the defence of mental disorder (sometimes called the defence of mental illness) is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because they were mentally ill at the time of the alleged criminal actions. These are a statutory version of the M'Naghten rules which define insanity in most common law countries. The Canadian provisions were enacted by Parliament after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the previous provisions were unconstitutional. ==Australia== In Australia there are nine law units. All may have varying rules (see ()). In South Australia, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) provides that: 269C—Mental competence A person is mentally incompetent to commit an offence if, at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence, the person is suffering from a mental impairment and, in consequence of the mental impairment— :(a) does not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or :(b) does not know that the conduct is wrong; or :(c) is unable to control the conduct. 269H—Mental unfitness to stand trial A person is mentally unfit to stand trial on a charge of an offence if the person's mental processes are so disordered or impaired that the person is— :(a) unable to understand, or to respond rationally to, the charge or the allegations on which the charge is based; or :(b) unable to exercise (or to give rational instructions about the exercise of) procedural rights (such as, for example, the right to challenge jurors); or :(c) unable to understand the nature of the proceedings, or to follow the evidence or the course of the proceedings. In Victoria the current defence of mental impairment was introduced in the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 which replaced the common law defence of insanity and indefinite detention at the governor's pleasure with the following: :the accused was suffering from a mental impairment; and :the mental impairment affected the accused so he or she either did not understand the nature and quality of the conduct, or did not know that it was wrong. These requirements are almost identical to the M'Naghten Rules, substituting "mental impairment" for "disease of the mind". 〔 ''M’Naghten's Case'' () ALL ER Rep 229; ''Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland'' () UKHL 3 (03 October 1961) (BAILII ) 〕 In New South Wales, the defence has been renamed the 'Defence of Mental Illness' in (Pt4 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 ). However, definitions of the defence are derived from M'Naghten's case and have not been codified. Whether a particular condition amounts to a disease of the mind is not a medical but a legal question to be decided in accordance with the ordinary rules of interpretation. This defence is an exception to the Woolmington v DPP (1935) 〔Woolmington v DPP () UKHL 1〕 'golden thread', as the party raising the issue of the defence of mental illness bears the burden of proving this defence on the balance of probabilities See (''R v Porter'' ). Generally, the defence will raise the issue of insanity. However, the prosecution can raise it in exceptional circumstances: ''R v Ayoub (1984).'' 〔 R v Ayoub (1984) 2 NSWLR 511 〕 Australian cases have further qualified an explained the ''M'Naghten Rules''. The NSW Supreme Court in held there are two limbs to the ''M'Naghten Rules'', that the accused did not know what he was doing, or that the accused did not appreciate that what he was doing was morally wrong, in both cases the accused must be operating under a 'defect of reason, from a disease of the mind'.〔''R v Jennings'' () NSWSC 789 (Kirby J) (11 August 2005) () (Austlii ).〕 The High Court in (''R v Porter'' ) stated that the condition of the accused’s mind is relevant only at the time of the actus reus.〔''R v Porter'' () HCA 1 (Austlii )〕 In ''Woodbridge v The Queen'' the court stated that a symptom indicating a disease of the mind must be prone to recur and be the result of an underlying pathological infirmity.〔''Woodbridge v The Queen'' (2010) 208 A Crim R 503, 531 (Davies J)〕 A ‘defect of reason’ is the inability to think rationally and pertains to incapacity to reason, rather than having unsound ideas or difficulty with such a task.〔''R v Porter'' () HCA 1 (Austlii )〕 Examples of disease of the mind include Arteriosclerosis (considered so because the hardening of the arteries affects the mind. See " See also.〔''R v Cheatham'' () NSWCCA 282 (Austlii )〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Mental disorder defence」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|