AN ANALYSIS OF THE MAGNAGHTEN RULE AND OTHER DEFENCES IN CRIMINAL LAW

 INTRODUCTION

 There are a wide range of defenses this a defendant may use in a bid to mitigate or to stop the conviction. Some of these defenses may prove a loophole that many criminals escape conviction and therefore no achievement of justice .some of these defenses are;

1.     M’NAGHTEN RULE

This is a defense which arose from the attempted assassination of British Prime Minister, Robert Peel, in 1843 by Daniel M’Naghten. The bullet fired by M’Naghten hit peels secretary, Edward Drummond, who died five years later. M’Naghten argued that he was not criminally responsible for his actions because he suffered from delusions at the time of the killing. The court held that the defendant may be excused from criminal liability if at the time of commission of the act; the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind as not to know the nature of his actions. The jury chaired by Sir Nicorlar Conyngahm Tindal came up with a principle which has come to be known as M’Naghten rules after M’Naghten had defended himself that he was insane at the moment of commission of the crime. The house  of Lords stated that that , “…..every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his   crimes, until  the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and to establish a defense on the  ground of the act ,the  party accused was laboring under such defect of reason from disease of the mind ,as not know the nature and the  quality of the act he was doing ,or if he did know, that he did not know he doing what was wrong…….’’

Overtime, this has become common defense insanity.  As the jurors had established, insanity results into total acquittals not a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity.”

In this defense therefore the defendant has to prove that at the time of commission or omission he/she had a defect of reason, that is, on internal failure in thinking process and the defect prevented the understanding of the true position or the possession of the mind. This however brings uncertainty to the defense since even the epileptic and the diabetic may prove to use the defense.

According to the Mental Health Act (1983), the mentally imbalanced persons who are dangerous should be restrained and if possible treated .For a case of murder, the sentence must be a hospital order with restriction on discharge.

This defense, however, has had various loopholes which deter justice and leads to undue acquittals and convictions. These are:

Ø  At the court, the accused is contending that he was insane but is now sane; this defense looks hard to prove to a jury and as it is, the defendant has the sole duty to prove that he was insane. This has always defeated many accused persons to prove their alleged insanity to the satisfactory status, through they might have actually been insane at that time.

Ø  Some people who formerly might have used this defense are now charged with infatiade or have the defense of diminished responsibility where the charge is one of murder. For example in the case of Tickel¹, the accused, a schizophrenic successfully pleaded diminished responsibility but was sentenced to life imprisonment. Before the defense was instituted, he would have had a defense of insanity. This implies that there are some people, who due to the progressive nature of the rule didn’t benefit from the rule though they are entitled to.

Ø  Most accused person whose punishment may be less than life imprisonment may opt to go to prison rather than to a mental hospital. This is because of the longer time they shall spend at the mental hospital than in prison .This has made many accused persons to plead guilty and not use the insanity defense, though applicable to them, so as to spend a minimum time at the prison.

Ø  Medical irrelevancy- the legal and medical definition of insanity differs and even though legal definition suffices, mandatory hospitalization is always ordered in the case of murder. This has always proved irrelevant. In the case where the defendant is not medically insane, there’s little point in requiring medical treatment. This has always been a loophole to justice as many have opted to plead guilty and serve a lenient imprisonment than the longer duration at the hospital.

Ø  Ineffectiveness and the width of the phrase-The rule doesn’t distinguish between defendant who represents public danger and those who don’t .Illness such as diabetes and epilepsy can be controlled by medication such that sufferers are less likely to have temporary aberrations of mental capacity. However, the law doesn’t recognize this and the diabetic and epileptic can also use the insanity defense .This is a serious loophole since a diabetic or epileptic may commit a crime when in full sense but by virtue of being ‘’insane” can  escape trial and be acquitted

Ø  Lack of proof– Psychiatrists lack reliable means of telling whether a person was insane at the time of commission of the crime.

Footnotes

1.        1958 (The Times 24 January)

There might be difficulty in proving insanity which is purported to have occurred after a long period of time. A shrewd accused might lie to have been insane at the time of commission and since it is difficult to prove, he might escape conviction .This is a serious loophole to justice since the lack of proof of insanity may lead to undue convictions or acquittal. On the same note, since it is only in this defense where the defendant has the sole responsibility of proof, a person may lack though his /her quest is genuine.

 In regard to all the above, it is necessary to note that this defense is a serious loophole to justice there is no reason for the answers to this hypothetical question being legally binding. The judges never intended the rules to be read as if they were words of a statute. This mean that a lot of research, proof and care should be taken when considering this defense so as to upheld justice

2) AUTOMATISM

This is one of the mental state of a defendant. It means that the defendant was not aware of his actions when making the particular movement that constituted the illegal act. For example, in the case of Ester Griggs (1858) where the defendant threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire.

This defense explores the automatic and involuntary actions that an accused might have done subject to an involuntary reflex action

However, this defense has also various loopholes and the serious one is that of proof. It is difficult to prove that the defendant was acting involuntary. The defendant might have acted voluntarily but in defense clinch to automatism .This means that it would be difficult to prove (if incase he successful plead for automatism) the mens rea which is required for conviction

With this loophole, some might escape conviction by pleading for automatism.

3)    ALIBI

 This is the mode of defense where a defendant proves or attempts to prove that he/she was in another place when a crime was committed.

For a conviction for commission ,the defendant must be have been at the place to alleged by the prosecution, and if he  incase proves that he wasn’t in the alleged place and position of crime ,then the case has to be reviewed or dismissed

              However, there’s a serious loophole in this defense in that:

i)     The defendant may successfully plead with   a defense of alibi, though it is false alibi .This might lead to his acquittal .This is repugnant to justice since guilty person may be acquitted on this ground.

ii)    Alibi agencies are literally paid to lie for their customers. With this they may successfully lie and prove an alibi that is false resulting in the acquittal of a guilty person.

4) JUDICIAL OFFICERS

A judicial officer is not criminally responsible for anything done or committed to be done by him in the excessive of his judicial functions.

This is a serious loophole since the officer may escape conviction for crimes they might have committed intentionally by virtue of their judicial powers.

By virtue of the office, it may be difficult to prove the mens rea since if the officer was acting within the power, his action might not constitute a criminal act.

However, some defenses have always been reliable, strong and genuine and have always led to the upholding of justice in criminal cases. Such defenses include:

     5. ENTRAPMENT

This is where the accused engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offence.

This is a strong and reliable defense since though the accused might have the actus rea, due to persuasion, the charge shall lack a mens rea. However to a minute extent, there might arise cases of false use of this defense, though it is in rare cases.

      6. DURESS

This is where the accused engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm top himself or to another. This is a strong and a genuine defense since an accused had not done the criminal act due to willingness, but for the sake of his/her health and life or the health and life of another person he was compelled to act criminally. This means that in case of a charge, there is the lack of the mens rea responsible and essential for a criminal charge.

Other defenses in criminal law include

i)                    Mistake of law

ii)                   Intoxication

iii)                 Mistake of fact

CONCLUSION

In a nutshell, most of the general defenses available in criminal law have serious loophole which have always been repugnant to justice and have always led to undue convictions and acquittals .The problem of proof is a serious one in both the M’Naghten rule and automatism.

Therefore, in convictions and judgments in various cases, care and greater analysis of proof should be adhered to so as to ensure justice is upheld