Principles of Criminal Law Notes (SF) PDF

Principles of Criminal Law *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* [Insanity ] **Article 3...

Principles of Criminal Law *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* [Insanity ] **Article 33:** *Every person is exempt from criminal responsibility if at the time of the act or omission complained of such person (a) was in a state of insanity.* What is insanity? The Maltese law does not define it, and instead looks to foreign sources. In the UK, prior to the 1840s, insanity defence existed and was used as a means through which one could be exempt from the punishments that accompany being found guilty of a crime, however it was applied very inconsistently. There was no clear legal standard to determine whether a person was insane at the time of the crime, so different courts could apply different criteria. This lack of clarity created a legal grey area, and it sometimes depended on the individual judge's interpretation of insanity, as well as the evidence presented by medical experts (who were themselves operating with limited psychological understanding by modern standards), and many who were assumed to be insane made attempts to clear their name in the eyes of the court, due to the terrible conditions of asylums at the time, preferring prison. In January 1843, Daniel M'Naghten attempted to kill the Prime Minister, instead shooting Edward Drummond, who he believed to the British Prime Minister Robert Pell, wounding him fatally. Drummond died five days later and M\'Naghten was charged with his murder. At trial, evidence was given of the shooting of Drummond and witnesses were called on the behalf of the defendant, M'Naghten, to attest to the fact he was not in a sound state of mind at the time of committing the act. This case is called **the R Versus M'Naghten case**, due to the Queen being notably displeased with the outcome of the case, and the decision to find him not guilty due to insanity, and thus avoid a death sentence, led to widespread public and governmental concern, including from the monarchy. Her displeasure led her to pressure the government and judiciary to tighten the legal standards around the insanity defence, ensuring that those claiming insanity would not evade punishment too easily. In response to the public backlash and the Queen's concerns, the House of Lords sought the opinions of senior judges. This led directly to the establishment of the **M\'Naghten Rules** later in 1843. The rules were designed to set a stricter standard for the insanity defence, ensuring that only individuals who were truly incapable of understanding their actions or knowing they were wrong could be acquitted on the grounds of insanity. These rules, which are not Maltese law yet are still important and used by the Maltese courts to help define insanity, are available in the Mamo Notes. Does temporary insanity exist? According to the M'Naghten Rules, no, as it defines insanity as a disease of the mind, something which is most often permanent. Acting due to other things such as anger do not count. Insanity cannot be the result of circumstances and/or emotion. Attacking blindly out of anger does not constitute as insanity, because you are still understanding of your actions and their consequences. If you know what you are doing is wrong, you are punishable. Our law, however, is not defined by the M'Naghten Rules, and has never excluded temporary insanity, however our court interpretations are often influenced by the M'Naghten Rules, leading to it possibly being set aside and discarded during certain cases. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | [The M'Naghten Rules] | | | | 1. *Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient | | degree of reason to be responsible for his crime until the | | contrary be proved to the satisfaction of a jury.* | | | | 2. *To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be | | 'clearly' shown 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 this) not to know that what | | he was doing was wrong morally;* | | | | 3. *As to his knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, the Judges | | say: \"if the accused was conscious that the act was one which he | | ought not to do and if that act was at the same time contrary to | | the law of the land, he is punishable'. Thus, the test is the | | power of distinguishing between right and wrong not, as was once | | supposed, in the abstract, but in regard to the particular act | | committed.* | | | | 4. *Where a criminal act is committed by a man under some insane | | delusion as to the surrounding facts, which conceal from him the | | true nature of the act he is doing, he will be under the same | | degree of responsibility as if the acts have been as he imagined | | them to be. He may, for instance, kill under the imagination | | either that he is the executioner lawfully carrying out a | | judicial sentence, or, on the other hand, merely that the person | | killed had once cheated him at cards.* | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Two forms of Insanity 1. **Cognitive Insanity**: This relates to a defendant\'s ability to understand right from wrong, often evaluated using the **Right or Wrong Test**, also known as the M\'Naghten Rule as made by the House of Lords. In this form, insanity is defined by whether the defendant could distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the crime due to a mental disorder. If they couldn\'t, they may be considered legally insane. 2. **Volitional Insanity**: This relates to a defendant\'s ability to control their actions, assessed through the **Irresistible Impulse Test**. This test considers whether, due to a mental illness, the defendant had an \"irresistible impulse\" to commit the act, meaning they could not control their behaviour, even if they understood it was wrong. One such example is kleptomania: a mental health disorder that involves repeatedly being unable to resist urges to steal items that you generally don\'t really need. When explaining this case, the Mamo notes refer to the **case of Rex vs Hay**. In cases involving an insanity defence, a jury is typically assembled to determine whether the defendant meets the legal criteria for insanity. This is common in more serious criminal cases. In less serious cases, however, the decision may rest with a magistrate instead. **Proving Insanity:** Establishing legal insanity requires more than a medical diagnosis. Although scientific and medical experts can identify various mental conditions associated with insanity, their assessments do not guarantee the satisfaction of **Article 33**, which outlines legal standards for insanity. There are numerous cases where a doctor has declared the accused insane, yet the jury has rejected this opinion. The court or jury is not obligated to accept expert testimony, even though such testimony is often requested to inform their decision. If the court ultimately deems the defendant insane, they are considered not legally responsible for their actions and are acquitted of the charges. However, they would then be committed to a mental health facility for treatment. [Intoxication] Self-Intoxication can and will never justify your actions, no matter the state you were in at the time of the act which brought you before the court. Intoxication can be the result of both alcohol and drugs, and the only times it may constitute as a defence are stated in **Article 34**, which speaks about two criteria: - The intoxication must be the result of the malicious or negligent act done by a third party, done without your knowledge. This is accidental (not by way of an accident, but extraneous to you) - As a result of this accidental intoxication, you therefore lose your capacity to understand, you cannot help doing what you're doing or you cannot understand what you are doing. 1 of your 2 basic capacities is missing, making intoxication complete. Therefore, you will have defence of intoxication when the intoxication is **accidental** and **complete**. How do you prove intoxication? This is up to the judge or magistrate. In court, proving intoxication generally requires evidence showing that a person was under the influence of alcohol or drugs to a degree that impaired their ability to function. The specific methods and standards for proving intoxication vary depending on the case type As a result of the intoxication, the person is deemed temporarily insane. To accept this circular interpretation, we must slightly discard the element of temporary insanity to convince the court. As a result of intoxication, you have intoxicated yourself to the extent that you have now become insane, and if you are insane, according to M'Naghten, the cause of the insanity must be a disease of the mind. This is the judicial interpretation, not the law. As a result of the intoxication you have given yourself a disease of the mind, therefore rendering yourself insane. The way we interpret insanity would tend to find fault with the notion of temporary insanity. There are however ways that intoxication can be used in favour of the accused. **Article 34, Sub-Article 4** states that *"Intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention specific or otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence."* This means that intoxication, regardless of its source, shall be considered in order to establish whether you could form of specific intent or otherwise. The two forms of intent we have are **generic** and **specific**. Most crimes have generic intent, whilst few offences have specific intent. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | In criminal law, **general intent** and **specific intent** refer to | | different levels of a defendant\'s mental state when committing a | | crime. General intent refers to the intent to perform the physical | | act itself, without needing a further intention to achieve a specific | | result. If a crime is classified as a general intent crime, the | | prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant intended to engage | | in the conduct that constitutes the offense. They do not have to show | | that the defendant intended a specific outcome. For example, assault | | and battery are often considered general intent crimes. In the case | | of battery, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to | | make physical contact, but they don't need to show an intention to | | cause a particular injury. | | | | Specific intent, on the other hand, involves a higher level of | | intent. It means that the defendant not only intended to perform the | | act but also intended a particular result or additional consequence. | | Crimes that require specific intent demand proof that the defendant | | had a particular purpose or goal beyond simply engaging in the | | conduct itself. For instance, burglary is typically a specific intent | | crime because it requires the intent to commit a crime within a | | building. It's not enough to prove that the defendant unlawfully | | entered the building; the prosecution must also show that the | | defendant intended to commit a crime inside, such as theft or | | vandalism. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Thus, the law is telling us that intoxication shall be considered when there is a crime requiring specific intent, in the absence of specific intent it is a generic intent and thusly not an offence. Specific intent requires a particular frame of thought and clarity of the mind, and therefore being intoxicated generally does not generate specific intent. The type of intent determines the punishment given to the accused. Specific intent would warrant a more severe punishment. Intoxication can therefore be used to lower the punishment for an offence. [Young Age] The courts agree that the rules of criminal conduct do not apply the same way to children, as one's **volitional and mental capacities** are still developing. Law classifies children into specific categories. **Article 35** states that *a minor under fourteen years of age shall be exempt from criminal responsibility for any act or omission.* This essentially means that they can do no wrong and are exempt from any criminal responsibility; **doli incapax** is the term used to refer to this. This is an irrebuttable presumption; **jure et de jure** is the term used to refer to this. No matter how much evidence one can produce on intent, the presumption is irrebuttable. Apart from the above article, article 37 states that *the minor under sixteen years of age shall also be exempt from criminal responsibility for any act or omission done without any mischievous discretion.* A child between 14 and 16 years of age shall also be exempt from criminal responsibility, if it can be shown that the child has not acted with mischievous discretion, making this a rebuttable presumption, as one can show that the child acted with mischievous discretion, resulting in them being held responsible for their actions; **iuris tantum** is the term used to refer to this. What does \"**mischievous discretion**\" mean? In legal terms, this concept differs from \"criminal intent,\" as the law does not refer to it in the same way. For children between the ages of 14 and 16, the usual principles of actus reus (the physical act of a crime) and mens rea (the mental intent to commit the crime) do not apply. This is because children in this age group are generally considered incapable of fully forming criminal intent. However, they are still expected to possess a basic volitional capacity---that is, an understanding of the difference between right and wrong. \"Mischievous discretion\" implies that a child in this age range has knowingly chosen to do something wrong, demonstrating a rudimentary form of decision-making, even if it doesn\'t amount to full criminal intent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In adult criminal law, proving both **mens rea** and **actus reus** is essential for establishing guilt. Without one or the other, a person is typically not held criminally responsible. Mischievous discretion, however, suggests that while these children might not have the fully developed mental capacity to form mens rea in a strict legal sense, they can still understand right from wrong. Mischievous discretion doesn't require full criminal intent (mens rea) but does assume that the child made a choice to engage in wrongdoing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Justifiable Homicide or Bodily Harm] There is no difference between a police officer and an ordinary citizen when it comes to causing bodily harm---they do not have any special legal permission to do so. The law only authorizes the deliberate harm or killing of a person in specific cases, such as the death penalty. In Malta, Carmelo Borg Pisani was the last person to be executed under such legal circumstances. Self-defence is based on the perception of an imminent threat or fear for your life or physical safety---triggering a \"fight or flight\" response. When acting in self-defence, the intent is to neutralize the threat, which may include using lethal force if necessary. In legal terms, justification for self-defence depends on the specific circumstances. If you act with the intent to kill in order to protect yourself, the act is evaluated within that context. Justification in self-defence is outlined in Article 223 of the law, which states that no offense is committed when the act is legally justified under such circumstances. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *No offence is committed when a homicide or a bodily harm is ordered or permitted by law or by a lawful authority, or is imposed by actual necessity either in lawful self-defence or in the lawful defence of another person. (Article 223)* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are situations where you are alone, without police assistance, and must protect yourself. In such cases, if you act to defend yourself and unintentionally cause the death of another person, you are not held criminally liable, provided your actions were justified under self-defence. The concepts of threat and perception vary from person to person. For example, a man confronted by another wielding a rod might perceive a significant threat and fear for his life. However, a trained soldier facing the same situation may not feel the same fear, as their experience equips them to handle such threats. This demonstrates that while the circumstances may be identical, the perception of threat and fear depends on the individual's experience and capabilities. Self-defence is subject to specific thresholds and criteria that the perceived threat must meet to ensure the principle is not abused. If these criteria are satisfied, but you were not genuinely afraid or felt no threat, you cannot claim to have acted in self-defence. A claim of self-defence is valid only in situations of actual necessity. You must be under a genuine threat, and the circumstances must align with the legal criteria for necessity to justify your actions. The physical evidence, such as the position of a bullet wound or the manner in which a knife was used, can help determine whether the intent was to kill or if the act was purely defensive. Cases of Actual Necessity The cases in which one is permitted to use violence as a form of self-defence is defined in section 224. These involve certain criteria: Under paragraph, it is clear that it must be in the act of repelling that you may use