Criminal Law and Process

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: Brief Facts: David was a schizophrenic who was undergoing medication for his condition. After his marriage, he had become a binge drinker and became very violent towards Josephine. On the day of their wedding anniversary, he had prepared lunch, but Josephine confessed her feelings for Len that day. He was drunk on that day and in a fit of rage, he killed his wife. David is charged with the murder of Josephine. Issue: Based on the facts stated above, the question that arises here is whether David has any defenses available and the burden and standard of proof available. The role of judge and jury and their respective functions in this case. In this case, the Department of Forensic Mental Health Professionals has to conduct an appropriate test for establishing his insanity[1]. The testimony of the forensic department needs to be testified by the Jury. However, the Jury cannot prove the accuser's criminal responsibility. In the same way, the medical practitioners do not have the authority to decide whether the defendant committed the murder or not. Relevant Rules and Procedures: In all crimes, the defense of insanity is available. According to section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, the jury can declare the defendant to be insane and pass a special verdict that "not guilty because of insanity[2]." This provided habitual admittance to secure a place somewhere to live in. A lifetime institutionalization was granted in cases where the Jury declares the defendant insane. In all instances of murder, the detention is always announced at the discretion of the Judge. This is stated in Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure ( Insanity) Act, 1964. In addition to other defenses, the defense of insanity is unique and can be raised by the judge and prosecution. This is the most frequent defense that is available to the defendant who is guilty of murder. To avoid the plea of guilt, they find a solution in establishing insanity. The defense of insanity is the most common defense, and it has lost its importance in the recent times since the death penalty is abolished[3]. The defense of insanity can be availed only at the following three points: Insanity before examination. Not fit to appeal. Insanity at the time when the offense was committed. The Home Secretary has the authority to arrest the defendant if he is insane at the time when the proceeding was about to start against him. The defendant can be detained and sent to the mental hospital. The offender's state of mind requires an approval of at least two medical practitioners[4]. The Judge or the prosecution defense can raise questions related to the unfitness to plead for the defendant. Section four of the Criminal Procedure Act 1964 (Insanity), states that unique adjudicators are established to decide whether the accused is not fit to plead or not. The decision of the Jury is based on the balance of probabilities. If any of the six things that happened and that was not in the control of the appellant, then the Jury can declare the defendant unfit to plead. The six probabilities are: Understanding of the charges Making a decision whether to appeal responsible or not. Using his power to challenge jurors. Instructing the counsel and solicitors. Following the proceedings of the course. Providing evidence for his defense[5]. The second Jury will establish the actus reus of the crime if the defendant is found not to be fit to plead. If the defendant did not consign the actus reus then that will be the end of that issue, or if the Jury is of the estimation that actus reus was committed, then the Judge can make an order under Section 5 of the Criminal Procedural Act (Insanity) 1964. In the case of R v. Pritchard[6], the defendant was hard of hearing and silent. The Jury held that since the defendant was deaf and dumb at the time of pleading, therefore, there are no means of communicating the details of the trial to the defendant. Hence, the Jury did not hold him guilty due to insanity. The MNaghten Rules[7] are applied to cases where the question of insanity is to be determined at the time of the offense. It must be established that the defendant was suffering from any of the following diseases at the time of the offense: A defect in the power of interpretation. The fault should be caused due to the ailment of the mind. The fault should be of such nature that the defendant did not know what he was doing or if he did not know that act he committed was wrong. In the case of R v. Burgess[8], the claimant was charged with murder because she smashed a bottle over a womans head and then hit her video recorder while she was sleeping. She defended herself stating that she was sleepwalking while she did this and could not recollect any of the events the next morning. Her claim was supported by medical evidence submitted by the medical department. Lord Lane held that we accept that sleep is a normal condition, but the evidence in the instant case indicates that sleepwalking, and particularly violence in the sleep, is not normal[9]. Every accused is presumed to be sane by law and answerable for his actions unless the reverse is proved. This means the onus or the burden of proof lies on the defendant to prove that he was not sane at the time when he committed the crime. In England, the balance of probabilities does the determination whereby the defendant has the onus to prove his insanity. The Human Rights Act of 1998 integrates the European Convention on Human Rights into English law. According to the given section, everyone who is charged with the offense of murder is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty[10]. The Criminal Procedure Act (Insanity) 1991 deals with the function of the jury about insanity. Section one of the Act has explicitly stated the responsibilities of the Jury, that a Jury shall not return a special verdict that "the accused is not guilty because of insanity." The law gives power to the Jury to decide where two medical practitioners are in conflict to determine insanity of a person. Therefore, the Jury has exclusive authority to decide a case than deals with insanity based on the facts and circumstances of the case[11]. Application: In the given case study, David can also defend himself on the ground that he was insane at the time when he killed Josephine. As it was already stated that David was a schizophrenic and was undergoing medication for his condition, therefore, it will be easy for David to prove that he was insane and not in his control at the time of killing his wife. The Jury will decide insanity of David. He will go through a medical test to determine his level of insanity. The Jury will have the sole responsibility to establish his insanity. In case of any conflict, the Jury will exercise his discretionary power and decide the matter based on the facts and circumstances of Davids case. The Jury will determine Davids insanity by applying the balance of probabilities analysis. At the time when David killed his wife, he was drunk and that time he did not have the power to understand that what might be the probable outcome of his action. He was not in a position to decide whether he was supposed to plead guilty or not. Additionally, he did not have the power or the right to challenge the jurors. The burden of proof lies in the hand of David. David has the onus of proving that he is insane. The general rule of law considers everyone innocent and sane, so the burden of proof lies in the hand of David to proof that he is insane. The Jury has to exercise his discretionary power to take decision and consider whether the defenses produced by David are valid or not. Conclusion: The determination based on insanity is criticized on many factors. The first reason this faces criticisms is medical irrelevance. In many cases of insanity, it was noted that the doctors often rely on obsolete methods of determining insanity. They do not use reliable method for determination of insanity. Other reasons why this test is criticized is because of ineffectiveness and scope of the determination[12]. Reference List: Arnell P, Law Across Borders (Routledge 2012) Ashworth A, Zedner L and Tomlin P, Prevention And The Limits Of The Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2013) Ashworth, Andrew, and Jeremy Horder.Principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013. Clark D, Comparative Law And Society (Edward Elgar 2012) Duff A, The Constitution Of The Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2013) Hall D, Criminal Law And Procedure (Delmar 2011) Herring, Jonathan.Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014. Mrazek, Patricia Beezley, and C. Henry Kempe, eds.Sexually Abused Children Their Families. Elsevier, 2014. R vPritchard(1836) 7 C. P. 303 Schmid E, Taking Economic, Social And Cultural Rights Seriously In International Criminal Law SeredynÃÅ' ska I, Insider Dealing And Criminal Law (Springer 2012) Sliedregt E and Vasiliev S, Pluralism In International Criminal Law Stephen, James Fitzjames.A history of the criminal law of England. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, 2014.