Ncrmd And Insanity Defences
1. Understanding NCRMD and Insanity Defenses
1.1 Definition
The insanity defense (often referred to as NCRMD in Canadian law) is a legal doctrine allowing a person to avoid criminal liability if, at the time of the offense, they were suffering from a mental disorder that rendered them incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their act.
Key elements:
Mental disorder: Must be recognized medically (psychosis, schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, etc.).
Cognitive incapacity: The individual could not understand the nature of their act or know it was wrong.
Timing: Must be assessed at the time of the offense, not after.
1.2 Legal Standard
In Canada: Section 16 of the Criminal Code provides the NCRMD defense.
In the UK: Insanity defense is codified under the M’Naghten Rules (1843).
In the US: Varies by state, often following M’Naghten or Model Penal Code standards.
Important Note: NCRMD does not absolve the accused completely; it may result in hospitalization or conditional release rather than traditional imprisonment.
2. Detailed Case Law
Case 1: R v. Parks (1992, Canada)
Facts: Kenneth Parks drove 23 km to his in-laws’ house, assaulted them, and killed his mother-in-law while sleepwalking.
Issue: Can sleepwalking qualify as NCRMD?
Court Decision: Parks was found not criminally responsible. He was asleep and unconscious of his actions.
Significance: The court recognized automatism/sleepwalking as a form of mental incapacity. NCRMD is not limited to psychiatric illness but can include unconscious states.
Case 2: R v. McNaughton / M’Naghten (1843, UK)
Facts: Daniel M’Naghten killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing he was being persecuted.
Issue: Could a delusion qualify as an insanity defense?
Court Decision: M’Naghten was acquitted on the grounds of insanity; this established the M’Naghten Rules.
Significance: The case created the legal standard for insanity:
Defendant must have a defect of reason from disease of the mind.
Must not know the nature and quality of the act, or
Must not know it was wrong.
This is still a foundational principle in most common law jurisdictions.
Case 3: R v. Swain (1991, Canada)
Facts: Swain, suffering from schizophrenia, committed an assault.
Issue: Can NCRMD apply if the mental disorder prevents the defendant from understanding the act’s wrongfulness?
Court Decision: The Supreme Court emphasized procedural fairness, stating NCRMD cannot lead to automatic incarceration; the person should receive treatment and supervision tailored to their risk.
Significance: This case highlights that NCRMD is therapeutic and protective, not punitive.
Case 4: R v. Latimer (1997, Canada)
Facts: Robert Latimer killed his severely disabled daughter. He argued emotional distress and mental disorder.
Issue: Can emotional stress qualify for NCRMD?
Court Decision: NCRMD defense was rejected. Emotional stress alone does not constitute a mental disorder that impairs understanding of right and wrong.
Significance: NCRMD requires a recognized psychiatric disorder, not just situational stress or moral conflict.
Case 5: R v. Daviault (1994, Canada)
Facts: Daviault, extremely intoxicated, committed sexual assault. He argued extreme intoxication impaired his mental capacity.
Issue: Can self-induced intoxication count as NCRMD?
Court Decision: The Supreme Court allowed temporary automatism from intoxication as a rare defense, but it is not the same as NCRMD and is applied very cautiously.
Significance: Voluntary intoxication generally does not excuse criminal behavior, but extreme cases where mental capacity is absent may be considered.
Case 6: R v. Hinchey (2006, Canada)
Facts: Hinchey, with paranoid schizophrenia, killed a person he believed was an agent of a conspiracy.
Issue: NCRMD applicability for delusional beliefs.
Court Decision: NCRMD was accepted; the court found Hinchey did not understand the wrongfulness of his act.
Significance: Reaffirms NCRMD for severe psychotic delusions that impair moral and cognitive understanding.
Case 7: R v. Oommen (2011, Canada)
Facts: Oommen suffered from bipolar disorder during a violent outburst.
Issue: Can bipolar disorder qualify for NCRMD?
Court Decision: NCRMD was applicable as he was in a manic state with impaired judgment.
Significance: Demonstrates that mood disorders can, in extreme cases, impair criminal responsibility.
3. Key Principles from Case Law
NCRMD is medical, not moral: The defense requires psychiatric evidence of impairment, not just bad judgment.
Timing matters: Only the mental state at the time of the offense is relevant.
Public safety and treatment: NCRMD often results in hospitalization, treatment, or conditional release rather than imprisonment.
Limits of NCRMD: Emotional stress, moral conflict, or voluntary intoxication rarely qualify.
Foundational rules: The M’Naghten Rules continue to define insanity in many jurisdictions.
Extended recognition: Disorders like schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, psychosis, and sleepwalking may qualify.
RELATED Blog
comments