Criminal Law Human rights and criminal justice

Question: David, a 20 year old schizophrenic who was prescribed medication for his condition by his doctor, was married to Josephine for a period of two years. Within the last 9 months David became a weekly binge drinker and in his alcoholic state became very violent towards Josephine. On their wedding anniversary David had planned to spend a quiet evening at home with Josephine and cooked a special meal for the occasion. David had a few drinks whilst cooking the meal and waiting for Josephine. She arrived home some 2 hours late and the meal was ruined. David became very irate, failed to take his medication and confronted Josephine as to her lateness. She plucked up enough courage to tell David that she no longer loved him because he was a madman, that she had a new lover, Len, who she had been seeing for the last 6 months and would be leaving David within a week. David flew into a rage and hit Josephine on the head and chest with a poker, killing her. He is charged with the murder of Josephine. Consider what defences, if any, may be available to David, explaining in your answer the burdens and standards of proof and the respective functions of the judge and jury in dealing with the issues arising in this case. Answer: David and Josephine were married for two years. David was a 20-year-old schizophrenic patient who was undergoing medication for his condition. In the past nine months, David had developed a habit of weekly binge drinking and in his alcoholic condition had become very violent towards Josephine. On their anniversary David has planned a quiet evening and cooked for his wife, however she was late by 2 hours, which made David consume a few alcoholic drinks. On her arrival, she mentioned David about her affair with another man named Len and told David that she no longer loved him and was leaving him within a week. Hearing the same, David, who had skipped his medication, hit Josephine on her head and chest killing her. He is charged with her murder. Relieving on the facts mentioned above, the issue that arises in the said case are whether David has any defences available to protect him from the murder charges and the standard and burden of proof, which is relevant to the said case. The present case also requires the discussion about the role and functions, which the Judge and the jury have in deciding the said case. What are the functions, which the Jury and the Judges deciding the case have to perform to arrive successfully at the accurate decision? The defence of insanity is available in every criminal action. In fact, the defence of insanity is a common defence, which can protect a mentally ill criminal from most of the crimes committed by him in his mental and unstable state of mind[1]. The insanity defence is available in United Kingdom legislation also. Under the Section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, the jury deciding a case in the United Kingdom has the right and the option to declare the accused as an insane person and pass a special verdict, which states not guilty due to insanity[2]. This verdict makes provisions for the accused to be placed in a secure habituate where the accused can be treated and protected. This can also help to protect the society, which is at harm due to crimes committed as a result of insanity of such people. Whenever a jury decides a case, which falls under the verdict of not guilty due to insanity, a lifetime institutionalisation is granted to the accused. When it comes to serious offenc es like murder, detention of insane accused is always announced at the discretion of the Judge or the jury trying the case. Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, 1964 makes provisions for the regulation mentioned above. Another important and significant feature of the insanity defence is that it is the only defence available in the criminal justice system, which can be raised by the judge and the prosecution. It is important to note that the defence of insanity is the most frequently used defence in maximum of murder cases. To avoid harsh punishments and prison, many offended use the defence of insanity as a way to get out of the alleged murder charges[3]. The defence of insanity is available only on when the following events occur together:- The accused was capable of being declared as an insane person at the time he was committing the crime The accused was insane before examination[4] The accused is unfit to file for an appeal The police authorities in the United Kingdom have the authority to arrest an accused if he behaves in an insane manner before the proceedings can be started against him. Such a person is then detained and sent to an appropriate mental health care centre[5]. However, the law requires the mental condition of such a person to be approved by at least two medical practitioners. It is one of the most complex jobs to prove insanity of an accused in a courtroom. As many people have previously misused the insanity defence, the parameters to decide on insanity as a defence have become very strict in the recent times. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1964 (Insanity) Act sets certain guidelines, which need to be applied in each insanity case if the accused wants to plead the said defence[6]. These guidelines are taken into consideration by the Judge to decide if the accused has committed the crime in that state of insanity. These guidelines are as follows:- Understanding of charges If the accused is responsible enough to appeal Power to challenge jurors The accused is capable of instructing his lawyers Understanding of the procedure If the accused can provide evidence for his defence[7] The decision of the judges will be based on balance of probabilities. The procedure is that the Judges establish actus reus of the crime committed if the accused seems unfit to plead. Actus Reus is an action or conduct, which constitute to a crime. In case the Judges feel that, the accused has contributed to the conduct, which constitutes a criminal act as opposed to his mental health, the Judges pass an order under section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1964 (Insanity) Act[8] In a case law R v Kemp(1957) 1 QB 399, a husband of good conduct made a violent and sudden attack on his wife with a hammer. He was criminally charged with causing grievous hurt. During the criminal proceedings, it was observed that the husband suffered from hardening of the arteries in the brain, which led to blood congestion in the brain resulting in an unconscious state of mind. It was held that the said problem was a disease of the mind within the M'Naghten Rules and, therefore, the defence of insanity or automatism could not be relied on. In this case, it was important to consider the state of mind of the accused and not the disease. It is important to note that the MNagthen Rules are very important in deciding cases which plead insanity as a defence. Under the MNagthen Rules, it is important to establish that at the time of the offence the accused was suffering from: A defect in reasoning Disease of the mind must cause the defect of disease The defect of reason must be in a manner where the accused fails to realise what he is doing, however, had he known and he would refrain from committing the offence In a case R v Burns58 Crime App R 364, the appellant was an alcoholic and suffered from amnesia, which is a result of brain damage. His condition not only made him incapable of remembering past events but he also suffered from a condition where he failed to register the current experiences, as his brain was impaired. On the day of the offence, appellant consumed alcohol and killed a person the Court held that appellant could plead insanity as a defence as he fulfilled the pre-requisites as mentioned in the MNagthen Rules[9]. When the defence of insanity is pleaded, the rule of law states that every accused is considered sane unless his insanity is proved. Therefore, the burden of proving insanity is on the accused. Therefore, in insanity cases, the onus of proof lies on the accused or the defendant that he was insane while committing the offence. In the United Kingdom, the balance of probabilities is used to determine the decision in the case and the defendant has the onus of proving that insanity of mind existed while he was committing the offence. The Human Rights Act of 1998 has incorporates provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights which state that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. The Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1991 talks about the functions of the jury concerning the plea of defence. Section 1 of the said Act suggests responsibilities of the Judges and the Jury and one of the most important responsibilities on the Jury is never to overrule the special verdict of not guilty due to insanity. In the case of the two medical practitioners, approving insanity of the accused are in conflict, the Jury can decide on the said conflict. Thus, the function of the Jury is to decide on insanity cases based on circumstances and facts in each case[10]. In the present case, David can plea for the defence of insanity for the murder charges on him. He can rightly prove that he was insane while hitting his wife Josephine with a hammer on her head and chest. The facts make it clear that David suffered from schizophrenia and was under medication for the same. As schizophrenia is a disease of the mind, which affects the reasoning of an individual, David can prove insanity and following the MNagthen Rules, he can prove that he suffered from a disease of the brain, which affected his reasoning, and he did not know what he was doing[11]. Additionally, Davis can plea for loss of control defence which was introduced in 2010 by section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Before the passing of the said legislation, the crime of murder had the defence of provocation. The defence of loss of control is a partial defence that may reduce liability for murder to manslaughter. It does not operate to absolve the defendant of liability completely. I t is not a general defence and exists only for the offence of murder. Thus, will apply in the present case. Also, under criminal law, diminished responsibility is a potential defence by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were "diminished" or impaired, thus Davis has another defence to lessen his liability due to his mental state. The burden of proof, in this case, lies on David to prove his insanity at the time of murder. At the time, David killed his wife; he was drunk and had failed to consume his regular medication, which aggravated his mental condition when he heard about his wifes affair. Considering the facts of the case, the Jury in the said case had to consider the report of two medical practitioners and decide the case using their discretionary powers considering the facts that David was not in the position to plead guilty nor was he capable to instructing his lawyers. Therefore, considering all the facts, the Jury should most probably accept the insanity defence and order special verdict of not guilty due to insanity[12]. Reference List Ashworth, Andrew, and Jeremy Horder.Principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013. Emmerson, Ben, Andrew Ashworth, and Alison Macdonald.Human rights and criminal justice. Sweet Maxwell, 2012. Harris, David, et al.Law of the European convention on human rights. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014. Heaton, Russell, and Claire De Than.Criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2010. Herring, Jonathan.Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014. James, David V. "Diversion of mentally disordered people from the criminal justice system in England and Wales: An overview."International journal of law and psychiatry33.4 (2010): 241-248. Keane, Adrian, and Paul McKeown.The modern law of evidence. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014. Lee, Philip. "Has disability discrimination legislation changed the legal framework for epilepsy in the United Kingdom?."Seizure19.10 (2010): 619-622. Martyr, Philippa. "Equal under the Law-Indigenous People and the Lunacy Acts in Western Australia to 1920."UW Austl. L. Rev.35 (2010): 317. Norrie, Alan.Crime, reason and history: A critical introduction to criminal law. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Roberts, Paul, and Adrian Zuckerman.Criminal evidence. Oxford University Press, 2010. Sprack, John.A practical approach to criminal procedure. Oxford University Press, 2011. [1] Heaton, Russell, and Claire De Than.Criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2010. [2] Martyr, Philippa. "Equal under the Law-Indigenous People and the Lunacy Acts in Western Australia to 1920."UW Austl. L. Rev.35 (2010): 317. [3] Ashworth, Andrew, and Jeremy Horder.Principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013. [4] James, David V. "Diversion of mentally disordered people from the criminal justice system in England and Wales: An overview."International journal of law and psychiatry33.4 (2010): 241-248 [5] Roberts, Paul, and Adrian Zuckerman.Criminal evidence. Oxford University Press, 2010. [6] Herring, Jonathan.Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014. [7] Sprack, John.A practical approach to criminal procedure. Oxford University Press, 2011. [8] Norrie, Alan.Crime, reason and history: A critical introduction to criminal law. Cambridge University Press, 2014. [9] Lee, Philip. "Has disability discrimination legislation changed the legal framework for epilepsy in the United Kingdom?."Seizure19.10 (2010): 619-622. [10] Keane, Adrian, and Paul McKeown.The modern law of evidence. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014. [11] Emmerson, Ben, Andrew Ashworth, and Alison Macdonald.Human rights and criminal justice. Sweet Maxwell, 2012. [12] Harris, David, et al.Law of the European convention on human rights. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.