Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
8.2.
7 Verdict 8.2.8 Diminished responsibility or capacity 8.2.9 Mental abnormality at the time of trial 8.3 Youth Glossary Summary Further reading Test yourself
Learning outcomes
When you have finished this study unit, you should be able to demonstrate your understanding of the defence of mental illness, having regard to both the biological (or pathological) and the psychological leg of the test for this defence the cause/s of the criminal incapacity (mental illness or mental defect) the onus of proof the role of expert evidence from psychiatrists and/or psychologists
decide whether, in a particular case of criminal incapacity, it would be better for
the accused to rely on the defence of mental illness or non-pathological criminal incapacity, having regard to the respective criteria the onus of proof the need for expert evidence (and its concomitant cost) the verdict in the case of a finding of incapacity
distinguish between the result of a successful reliance upon the defence of
criminal incapacity and the result of a finding of diminished criminal capacity express an informed opinion on whether a child of any age under 14 years should be found to have been criminally incapable on account of their youthful age 109 CRW2601/1 8.1 BACKGROUND 484In study unit 7, we pointed out that 485In that study unit, we began to discuss the concept of criminal capacity. We have already analysed that concept, and pointed out that there are three defences that may exclude criminal capacity, namely the defence of non-pathological criminal incapacity, the defence of mental illness (so-called insanity) and the defence of youth. We discussed the first of these three defences in the previous study unit. In this study unit, we will discuss the other two defences.
8.2 MENTAL ILLNESS486(Criminal Law 149-156)
8.2.1 Introduction 487Criminal capacity may be excluded by the mental illness or abnormality of the accused (X). The defence of mental illness was previously known as the defence of "insanity". The latter term has, however, fallen into disfavour in modern psychology. Some of the most important sources dealing with the subject refer to it as "mental abnormality" or "mental illness", and for this reason we prefer to use the expression "mental illness". 488Since 1977, the whole subject relating to mental illness as a defence in criminal law has been governed by legislation, more particularly by section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. It is interesting to note that this is one of the few subjects in the general principles of criminal law that is regulated by statute. As you will have gathered by now, almost all the other principles or defences (such as automatism, causation, private defence, intention and negligence) are governed by common law, which is that system of legal rules not contained in legislation. 489Before 1977, the South African courts, in dealing with the defence of mental illness, applied a set of rules known as the "M'Naghten rules", which were derived from English law. However, since these rules ceased to apply after 1977, we will not discuss them here. One of the most important sources on the rules relating to this defence is the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Responsibility of Mentally Deranged Persons, dating from the late 1960s. The chairman of the commission was Mr Justice Rumpff, then a judge of appeal and, later, Chief Justice. The report of the commission is usually described as the "Rumpff Report". 8.2.2 Contents of section 78(1) 490The test to determine the criminal capacity of mentally abnormal persons is contained in section 78(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which reads as follows: 110 A person who commits an act or makes an omission which constitutes an offence, and, who at the time of such commission or omission suffers from a mental illness or mental defect which makes him or her incapable a. of appreciating the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission; or b. of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission, shall not be criminally responsible for such act or omission.
Determination of Dar Zarrouk Parameters For Prediction of Aquifer Protective Capacity A Case of Agbani Sandstone Aquifer Enugu State Southeastern Nigeria
