Facts of the case
As per facts of the case, the accused named Ena suffering from mental disorders. She has been charged for brutal murder of a bystander, Mert. There is absence of murder motive in a case. The reason behind lack of motive that an accused has no past criminal records and even no past history with a deceased victim. Even the evidences also lied in his favour as reporting of witnesses of the case suggested that there was no apparent evidence of murder motivation was recognized during murder stage. Moreover, the friends and family stated that the accused was undergone with an anti-psychotic medication for past two years. Now the present situation is that accused is able to overcome with his medication services because of his good response on the health disorder.
Issues of the case
- Whether accused fit to stand for a trial under s.2 or not?
- Whether accused actually suffering from mental disorder in section 16 (1) or not?
- Whether the present case is fit under absolute defence of homicide on ground of “Automatism”?
Response to the issues
As per above issues, the first issue favour accused mental state. Currently, the accused is not in a state of forming rational understanding of the nature of the case proceedings and able to conduct defence. Case reference: R. v. Whittle [1994] 2 SCR 914the case sets out an acquittal on ground of mental disorder of the accused (Stuart, 2007)
The second issue deals with a broad application on “defence of Mental Disorder”. The appropriate response to the present issue shall be that an accused is entitled to benefits of defence of mental disorder as it is proved by the material evidences of the witness, friends’ and family of the accused. The accused fall under category of “NCR: Not Criminally Responsible”. The accused defence be proved with most leading case of R V M’Naghten (1843) 8 E.R. 718; (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 200- the case provided an established rule on “defence of the insanity”. Every case must show that accused laboured under medical treatment and he often remains in an unknown state of recognizing his acts in a manner of “what is right and what is wrong” (Taylor, 2014).
The third issue represent an appropriate response that the accused case lies in a category of “Automatism”. The defence of automatism used rarely as a defence as it consist of involuntary act without any control of the mind. But to the present case, it is fit example on defence of Automatism (Hodgins et.al 2008). The accused was already undergone with the symptom of the automatism prior to the murder. Such symptoms were weird behaviour, minor paranoia, struggling for sleeping and obsessive inclinations. R v Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290 is a leading verdict on the defence of automatism. Recent verdict of the supreme court of Canada in R v Alexander, 2015 BCCA 484 (CanLII) at states that the automatism is a factor deals with an action of lack of voluntariness element in the actus reus of the criminal offence. Thus in this present case, the accused has no voluntary conduct to constitute an action of the offence.
Legal application of the case
The legal application is based on the “Mental Impairment and Criminal Responsibility” under Criminal Code. It is a fundamental rule of the Canadian Criminal Code that an accused must be capable enough to form rational understanding over the consequences of his conduct in order to establish the guilt of the offence. There must be a factor of “appreciation” on the committed acts or conducts for a purpose to get matching of such act or conducts with behaviour (Roach and Bailey, 2009). For instance: accused can have mental disorders in order to form believe of his action. In other words, the person must suffer from mental illness where he does not get understand the consequences of the wrong actions. Such wrong action of the accused are determined in the case of R. v. Chaulk [1990] 3 S.C.R. the case held that wrong action must include both the factors of legal as well as moral wrongs (Clarke, Barnhorst and Barnhorst ,2007).
It is a transparent case on the legal application based on the section 16, Canadian Criminal Code and the notable element of “Automatism”. According to section 16 of the code, the person categorised his plea in “Non Criminally Responsible” on the basis of his mental disorder (Salhany, 2014). If the case settled by such plea, the accused get benefit of acquittal. One of the verdicts of the Canadian Supreme Court matches with the facts of the present case. Such facts were that accused treated him like a god and therefore he is responsible to destroy the evil power of Satan- R v Landry [1991] 1 S.C.R. 99. While the facts of the present case also represent almost identical situation that was Ena had considered that victim as an evil spirit who aimed to kill the family of Ena (Desmarais, 2008)
Analysis of the case
The present case provides a transparent assessment of the fundamental principle of factor on “NCRMD: Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder” and Automatism” by the help of verdicts on four significant cases delivered by the Supreme Court. These four cases are Oommen Case (1994), Winko (1999), Stone (1999) and Fontaine (2004).
In Oommen Case, the standards of the wrong are evaluated on the basis of the ordinary person’s sanity in the substantive law of the criminal code (Griffiths, 2014)
In winko case, the case decided the procedural issue to any case where it is significant to decide a factor of “fit to stand trial”. There is always vital to make prominent balance between rulings on NCRMD with the needs of the society. An insane should not harm the society after acquittal (Dixon, 2009)
Lastly the case of stone and fontaine provides a clear established factor for the “Automatism” that depends completely on a stage of mental disorder of the accused (Chan, 2011)
References:
Chan, W. C., Wright, B., & Yeo, S. M. H. (Eds.). (2011). Codification, macaulay and the indian penal code: The legacies and modern challenges of criminal law reform. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
Clarke, K. L., Barnhorst, R., & Barnhorst, S. (2007). Criminal law and the Canadian criminal code (pp. 10-18). McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Desmarais, S. L., Hucker, S., Brink, J., & De Freitas, K. (2008). A Canadian example of insanity defence reform: Accused found not criminally responsible before and after the Winko decision. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 7(1), 1-14.
Dixon, R. (2009). The Supreme Court of Canada, Charter Dialogue and Deference.
Griffiths, C. (2014). Canadian Criminal Justice: A Primer, 5e(Vol. 5). Nelson Education.
Hodgins, S., Mednick, S., Brennan, P. A., Schulsinger, F., & Engberg, M. (2008). Mental disorder and crime. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55(1), 87-88.
Roach, K., & Bailey, A. (2009). The relevance of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Canadian criminal law from investigation to sentencing. UBCL Rev., 42, 1.
Salhany, R. E. (2014). Canadian criminal procedure. Canada Law Book.
Stuart, D. (2007). Canadian criminal law: a treatise. Carswell.
Taylor, P. J. (2014). Mental disorder and crime. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 14(S1).
