By Runsewe Solomon
|
People who are charged with a criminal offence and who are suffering from a mental disorder are dealt with under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 as amended by the Criminal Law (Instantly) Act 2010.
The Hope Classics spoke with some legal practitioners on the matter. Excerpts;
A mentally deranged person is somebody who is not stabled emotionally, not at his lucid state of mind.
The word “sane” derives from the Latin adjective sanus meaning “healthy”. The phrase “mens sana in corpore sano” is often translated to mean a “healthy mind in a healthy body”. From this perspective, insanity can be considered as poor health of the mind, not necessarily of the brain as an organ (although that can affect mental health), but rather refers to defective function of mental processes such as reasoning. Mental disability also referred to as “insanity”, “craziness” or “madness” is a spectrum of behaviours characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including one becoming a danger to himself and others.
Under section 28 of the Criminal Code A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or omission, he is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of his capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.
A person whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an act, is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the first arm of the section, is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was induced by the delusion to believe to exist.
Section 29 of the Criminal code also gives the hint that a person may behave irrationally based on the influence of alcohol, drugs or narcotics.
“Every man is to be presumed to be sane until the contrary is proved and … that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.”
Basically, this test focuses on whether a criminal defendant knew the nature of the crime or understood right from wrong at the time it was committed. Thus, in order to be declared legally insane under this test, a defendant must meet one of these two distinct criteria.
Insanity defense is primarily used in criminal prosecutions.
It is based on the assumption that at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from severe mental illness and therefore, was incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime and differentiating right from wrong behaviour, hence, making them not legally accountable for crime. If it can be proved that at the point of committinga criminal offence, the person is insane, it will be discharged of the offence but if otherwise, he will be made to face the wrath of the law.
Where an accused person pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, the court has to consider all the evidence to determine whether the accused committed the offence and whether he was insane at the time of committing the offence. If he is found not to have committed the offence, he is acquitted just like a sane person.
Likewise, if he is found to have committed the offence and to be sane at the time of committing the offence, he must also be convicted as charged and sentenced accordingly. If on the other hand the accused is found to have committed the offence, but to be insane at the time of committing it, the court will enter a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity”.
When a person is in the midst of a mental health crisis, functioning or formulating a plan to go out and commit a crime is almost impossible.
To establish a defence on the ground of mental illness, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
The main ingredient of plea success was either loss of capacity to control action or understand conduct. Section 28 of the Criminal Code Act states as follows: “A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of the capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission”.
It is germane to note that there have been arguments to the effect that mental disease could be given a narrow interpretation not covering conditions such as mental defect or deficiency (i.e. intellectual disability) although mental illness is one of the many factors that contribute to verdict of a lighter sentence especially when the defendant’s illness at the time of the commission of the offence is successfully proved.
Summarily, a criminal defendant can plead that he or she is not criminally responsible for a crime due to mental illness as insanity defence. In practice, this is proved by preponderance of evidence to show that he or she lacked capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct at the time of committing the offence.
The prosecution has a much higher burden – proof beyond reasonable doubt – to show that the defendant was not mentally ill at the time and if proved successfully, such a defendant can be convicted accordingly.
People who are charged with a criminal offence and who are suffering from a mental disorder are dealt with under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 as amended by the Criminal Law (Instantly) Act 2010.
The question of the mental state of someone charged with a crime may arise at two different stages – at the start of the trial and at the decision on guilt. If a person is suffering from a mental disorder, they may be considered unfit to be tried at the start of the trial. In that case, no trial goes ahead.
If a trial is held and the person is considered to have actually committed the offence but was insane at the time, it is possible for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity to be reached. In murder cases, the concept of diminished responsibility may be used to substitute a verdict of manslaughter.
The decision on whether or not a person is fit to be tried is made by a judge. If the person cannot understand the charge or is unable to instruct a legal team, challenge jurors or follow the evidence, then they may be considered unfit to be tried.
This finding (that is that someone is considered unfit to be tried) is not a decision on the alleged criminal activity. If someone is found to be unfit to be tried, then the trial is postponed.
The judge then decides what happens next. For example, the person may be committed to a psychiatric hospital or unit if they are considered to be suffering from a mental disorder and are in need of in-patient treatment under the terms of the Mental Health Act, 2001.
Alternatively, the person may be sent for out-patient psychiatric care. The person may be committed to a psychiatric hospital or unit for 14 days in order to establish whether or not they should be sent for treatment. The person may appeal against a committal order.
If the judge considers that a person is unfit to be tried and that there is a reasonable doubt that the person committed the alleged crime, the person may be acquitted.
The Director of Public Prosecutions or the accused person may appeal against a decision that they are unfit to be tried.
Such a person will/can be hospitalized for 60 days or more and if the mental health improves he stands a trial if otherwise it’s referred to as psychosis disorder.
That do not mean the person is outrightly acquitted, there has to be a document or health records which affirms that such a person has insanity which differs from low intelligence or being criminally insane because wherein the later two (low intelligence or criminally insane)applies the person stands to be tried.
A criminally insane person stands to commit crimes on a conscious mind, he has consistent intent for his behavior due to early abuse/severe child abuse.
If a person with mental health issues is incarcerated on criminal charges, they can be hospitalized for up to 60 days for treatment, during which time they will be examined to see if they are competent to stand trial.
He will convicted of the crime if it is established that he was in his lucid period, that is, when he could reason like a normal human being during the commission of the crime.
We have crime committed before, during and after insanity and the one that exculpates the accused person is the one he commits during insanity.
“The established law is that a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offence, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.
Because willful intent is an essential element of most offences, a person who is insane is not capable of forming such intent. It must be noted that mental disease or defect does not alone constitute a legal insane defence, the accused has the burden of proving the defence of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
The State (1995) 6 NWLR Part 399 page 11 , Iguh, J.S.C, stated that the general rule is that every person is presumed to be of sound mind, and to have been of sound mind at any time which comes in question, until the contrary is proved. An accused who contends that he is insane or indeed, that he suffers from insane delusion, has the duty to rebut the presumption of law which regards him as sane until the contrary is proved. The onus therefore rests on him to prove insanity or insane delusion. In order to establish the defence of insanity, the defence must first and foremost show that the accused was at the relevant time, suffering from either mental disease or from a natural mental infirmity. Then, it must be established that the mental disease, or the natural mental infirmity as the case may be, was such that, at the relevant time, the accused was as a result deprived of capacity: (a) to understand what he was doing, or (b) to control his action; or (c) to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.
Proof of insanity can however be established from compelling evidence of eye witnesses, particularly relations of the accused, relating to his general behaviour before, during and after the incident. The problem however in relying on the evidence of relatives only without medical report or evidence is that there are certain traits in human beings, to varying degree which are sometimes mistaken for insanity. Some of them are irascibility, irritability, eccentricity and querulousness. Persons afflicted with any of these traits to a high degree are easily spurred to violence and wrongly regarded as being insane by the uninformed. Further, in Ani vs. State (supra) Akpata, J.S.C., referred to the expressions of Aniagolu, J.S.C., in Sanusi vs.
The State (1984) 10 SC 166 at 177 on how insanity could be proved and such other facts and circumstances which will help the trial Judge come to the conclusion that the burden of proof of insanity placed by the Criminal Code or the defence has been amply discharged. A person is unable to make a decision if he cannot (1) understand the information relevant to the decision, retain the information or use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision or communicating the decision.
Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are rarely set free. Instead, they are almost always confined in mental health institutions. They may remain confined for a longer period of time than had they been found guilty and sentenced to a term in prison.