Mental illness or mental defect and criminal responsibility 7 8 (1) 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. [Subs. (1) substituted by s. 5 (a) of Act No. 68 of 1998.
] (1A) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental illness or mental defect so as not to be criminally responsible in terms of section 78 (1), until the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities. [Subs. (1A) inserted by s. 5 (b) of Act No. 68 of 1998. ] (1B) Whenever the criminal responsibility of an accused with reference to the commission of an act or an omission which constitutes an offence is in issue, the burden of proof with reference to the criminal responsibility of the accused shall be on the party who raises the issue. [Subs. (1B) inserted by s.
5 (b) of Act No. 68 of 1998. ] (2) If it is alleged at criminal proceedings that the accused is by reason of mental illness or mental defect or for any other reason not criminally responsible for the offence charged, or if it appears to the court at criminal proceedings that the accused might for such a reason not be so responsible, the court shall in the case of an allegation or appearance of mental illness or mental defect, and may, in any other case, direct that the matter be enquired into and be reported on in accordance with the provisions of section 79.
The Term Paper on Mentally Ill Mental Act Insanity
The insanity defence was bought into action in 1843 to protect those suffering from a mental illness / disease at the time of committing a crime, however society's growing indignant attitude towards these offenders is both destructive and detrimental to the reputation of the Queensland Legal System. The insanity defence is misconstrued by the general public, and viewed as a weak argument-an easy ...
[Subs. (2) substituted by s. 5 (c) of Act No. 68 of 1998. ] (3) If the finding contained in the relevant report is the unanimous finding of the persons who under section 79 enquired into the mental state States Emotions Thoughts">relevant mental condition of the accused, and the finding is not disputed by the prosecutor or the accused, the court may determine the matter on such report without hearing further evidence.
(4) If the said finding is not unanimous or, if unanimous, is disputed by the prosecutor or the accused, the court shall determine the matter after hearing evidence, and the prosecutor and the accused may to that end present evidence to the court, including the evidence of any person who under section 79 enquired into the mental condition of the accused. [Page 13–13] (5) Where the said finding is disputed, the party disputing the finding may subpoena and crossexamine any person who under section 79 enquired into the mental condition of the accused.
(6) If the court finds that the accused committed the act in question and that he or she at the time of such commission was by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability not criminally responsible for such act— (a) the court shall find the accused not guilty? or (b) if the court so finds after the accused has been convicted of the offence charged but before sentence is passed, the court shall set the conviction aside and find the accused not guilty, by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability, as the case may be, and direct— (i)
in a case where the accused is charged with murder or culpable homicide or rape or another charge involving serious violence, or if the court considers it to be necessary in the public interest that the accused be— (aa) detained in a psychiatric hospital or a prison pending the decision of a judge in chambers in terms of section 47 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2002? (bb) admitted to and detained in an institution stated in the order and treated as if he or she were an involuntary mental care health user contemplated in section 37 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2002?
The Term Paper on Mental impairment
... avoid further interference with the mental condition of the accused. The courts of appeal and the high courts have time and again deliberated ... the criminals are committing crimes after being acquitted. The findings of the research suggested that those offenders who committed ... under section twenty cap one of the crimes Act of nineteen ninety seven that only a person suffering from mental disorder ...
(cc) . . . . . . [Item (cc) deleted by s. 13 of Act No. 55 of 2002. ] (dd) released subject to such conditions as the court considers appropriate? or (ee) released unconditionally? (ii) in any other case than a case contemplated in subparagraph (i), that the accused— (aa) be admitted to and detained in an institution stated in the order and treated as if he or she were an involuntary mental health care user contemplated in section 37 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2002? (bb) . . . . . . [Item (bb) deleted by s. 13 of Act No.
55 of 2002. ] (cc) be released subject to such conditions as the court considers appropriate? or (dd) be released unconditionally. [Subs. (6) substituted by s. 11 of Act No. 33 of 1986, amended by s. 9 of Act No. 51 of 1991 and by s. 43 of Act No. 129 of 1993 and substituted by s. 5 (d) of Act No. 68 of 1998 and by s. 13 of Act No. 55 of 2002. ] (7) If the court finds that the accused at the time of the commission of the act in question was criminally responsible for the act but that his capacity to appreciate the
wrongfulness of the act or to act in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of the act was diminished by reason of mental illness or mental defect, the court may take the fact of such diminished responsibility into account when sentencing the accused. (8) (a) An accused against whom a finding is made under subsection (6) may appeal against such finding if the finding is not made in consequence of an allegation by the accused under subsection (2).
(b) Such an appeal shall be made in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as an appeal against a conviction by the court for an offence.
(9) Where an appeal against a finding under subsection (6) is allowed, the court of appeal shall set aside the finding and the direction under that subsection and remit the case to the court which made the finding, whereupon the relevant proceedings shall be continued in the ordinary course. Commentary Introduction—Section 78 deals with the possible absence of criminal responsibility because of the mental incapacity of the accused at the time of his or her committing of the conduct in question. (Because drunkenness and serious emotional stress are related to mental illness, they [Page 13–14] are also discussed in this section.
The Essay on Juvenile Court System Criminal Case Adult
Waiving juvenile cases to a criminal court is a complicated process, and may take some time in order to make the proper decision. There are a few different ways in which this decision is made. In some jurisdictions, the cases may be decided upon an intake unit within the court which then decides to process it formally or informally. Other jurisdictions may use another agency such as the ...
In particular, reference is made to Act 1 of 1988 regarding drunkenness. ) In terms of an amendment of section 78(2) by Act 68 of 1998 which came into operation on 28 February 2002 “any other reason” is now also a basis for a referral for observation. This would bring cases of socalled “sane automatism”, which have led to acquittal because there was no legally relevant conduct (S v Henry 1999 (1) SACR 13 (SCA) at 19h–j), within the ambit of section 78(2).
Thus, even if there is no question of any alleged mental illness or mental defect, the court may refer the accused for observat
ion. The result of this is that the court will be properly informed about the mental state of the accused. The psychiatrist will in such cases possibly be able to give guidance to the court. See McSherry “Getting away with murder? Dissociative states and criminal responsibility” 1998 (21) International Journal of Law and Psychiatry at 163: “In Canada dissociative states are seen as falling within the defence of mental disorder, which may result in a number of dispositional options including detention in a psychiatric facility.
In Australia, evidence of dissociative states generally leads to a complete acquittal”. Before Act 68 of 1998 the position in South Africa was the same as that which McSherry describes for Australia. The distinction between conduct and mental abilites must not be exaggerated. The conceptual distinction between body and mind is based on mistaken logic – see Ryle The Concept of Mind (1963) at 23 where he refers to Descartes’s myth, the “ghost in the machine”.
The investigation of the conduct is part of the question of mental capacity (see for instance S v Henry 1999 (1) SACR 13 (SCA) at 19h–j).
In S v Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA) Navsa JA discussed the defence of “sane automatism” fully. The court has to investigate the facts properly? in few cases there will be room for this defence. Presumption and burden of proof—Every person is presumed to be criminally responsible until the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities (subsection (1A)) by the party raising the issue (subsection (1B)).
The Essay on Circuit Court Evidence Cases Heard
Process of Law A law trial begins when a party brings suit against another party, or several parties. A request for jurors is sent out, and a list of possible jurors is created. The defendant (s) for both parties may now filter out jurors through the list, in two different ways. The first, For Cause, means a juror is dismissed because they are or were employed by or related to one of the parties. ...
This presumption follows upon subsection (1A), dealing with the presumption of sanity. Subsection (1B) is designed to regulate matters relating to pathological mental conditions, not nonpathological conditions (Burchell Principles of Criminal Law 3 ed. (2005) 390? Milton 1999 12 SACJ 47).
In S v Van Der Westhuizen 2011 (2) SACR 26 (SCA) the trial court applied the usual standard of proof in criminal cases, to avoid a possible objection by the accused to the provisions of section 78(1A) (par [43], footnote 60).
