Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Introduction

This article discusses the significance of the MNaghten Rules in relation to the Zambian
criminal justice jurisprudence. It will begin by identifying what the MNaghten Rules are
and then relate them to what the Zambian criminal jurisprudence states regarding
alleged crimes committed by persons afflicted with insane delusion. It will then draw a
conclusion from the following.
MNaghten Rules
The modern law of insanity can be traced to the trial of Daniel MNaghten in London in
1843,1 and the eponymous MNaghten Rules which arose from it. The MNaghten Rules
continue to inform the law on insanity in most common law jurisdictions around the
world.2 The significance of the MNaghten Rules for the law obtaining in Zambia
demands that they be explained in some detail.
On 20th January 1843, Daniel MNaghten, aiming to kill the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom, Robert Peel, shot and killed at a man he believed to be Peel, Edward
Drummond. MNaghten was immediately arrested and charged with willful murder.
MNaghtens defence counsel, Alexander Cockburn together with nine medical experts
along with eight lay witnesses argued that MNaghten was insane and therefore, should
not be held responsible.3 At trial, the Solicitor General, referring to previous cases,
stated that MNaghten could not be excused on the grounds of insanity if he had that
degree of intellect which enabled him to know and distinguish between right and
wrong.4 MNaghtens defence counsel, Alexander Cockburn argued that, although
MNaghten had committed the act, he should not be held responsible for it because the

1 William White, Insanity and the Criminal Law (Macmillan New York 1923)
2 Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law,(2nd edn Stevens & Sons Publication London 1983)
3 D J West and A Walk, Daniel McNaughton: His Trial and The Aftermath (Ashford Gaskell Books 1977)
4 D J West and A Walk, Daniel McNaughton: His Trial and The Aftermath (Ashford Gaskell Books 1977)
1

fierce and fearful delusion 5 that he was being persecuted subsisted at the time of the
killing and meant that he was unable to control his actions. After hearing the medical
witnesses, Chief Justice Tindal stopped the proceedings and remarked that the whole
of the medical evidence is on one side. 6 In accordance with the practice carried over
from the previous era, the jury found MNaghten not guilty by reason of insanity.
Chief Justice Lord Tindal7 set out the elements of the insanity defense when he stated:
Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and possess a sufficient degree of
reason to be responsible to his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their
satisfaction; and to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be
clearly proven 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 being done; or if he did know it, that he
did not know that what he was doing was wrong. 8
As this indicates, there are three limbs to MNaghten insanity: the defendant must have
a disease of the mind, resulting from a defect of reason and the effect of this must be
either that he or she did not know the nature and quality of the act, or that it was
wrong.9 Where an individual successfully raises a mental incompetence defense, the
law provides that such a person cannot be held to have committed the offence, and he
or she is found not guilty by reason of mental incompetence. As this verdict indicates,
the outcome of a mental incompetence defense is different from the outcome that
follows other successful defenses. A successful incompetence defense subjects the
defendant to special powers of the court.
5 R Moran, Knowing Right from Wrong: The Insanity Defense of Daniel McNaughton (New York The Free Press
1981)

6 D J West and A Walk, Daniel McNaughton: His Trial and The Aftermath (Ashford Gaskell Books 1977)
7 A E Golieb, Intention, and Knowing the Nature and Quality of an Act (Modern Law Review 1956)
8 D J A Cairns, Advocacy and The Making of The Adversarial Criminal Trial (Oxford Clarendon Press 1865)
9 S Bronitt and B McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law (3rd edn Thomson 2010)
2

The MNaghten rule is a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical
testimony from prosecution and defense experts. The rule created a presumption of
sanity, unless the defense proved that;
at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a
defect of reason, from disease of 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 what he was
doing was wrong.10
The defense of insanity is admissible as a defense for murder. It basically asserts that
the accused is not guilty of the offence in question by reason of insanity, that because
he did not have the required intention to commit the offence. As espoused by Hatchard
and Ndulo, the accused may be convicted even when they are insane if at the time of
committing the act, they were not afflicted by such insanity.11
A presumption that is often made when an accused has been charged with committing
an offence is that they possessed the requisite evil intent, mens rea. A defendant might
plead insanity or mental disorder as a defense to negate the mens rea of any crime.12 In
the Zambian criminal justice jurisprudence, a defendant would be acquitted on the
grounds of insanity if they adduce sufficient evidence to prove that they suffered from
such a mental disorder and were unable to appreciate the consequences of their
actions or did not know that what they were doing was wrong. Section 12 of the Penal
Code13 states that;
A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time to
doing the act or making the omission he is, through any disease affecting his
mind, incapable of understanding what he is doing or of knowing that he
10 D W Elliot and J C Wood, A Casebook on Criminal Law (Sweet and Maxwell London 1963)
11 J Hatchard and M Ndulo, A Case Book on Criminal Law (University of Zambia Press Lusaka 1983)
12 J Hatchard and M Ndulo, A Case Book on Criminal Law (University of Zambia Press Lusaka 1983)
13 Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia
3

ought not to do the act or make the omission. But a person may be criminally
responsible for an act or omission, although his mind is affected by disease, if
such disease does not in fact produce upon his mind one or other of the
effects above mentioned in reference to that act or omission.
Article 18 (2) of the Constitution provides the fundamentals of criminal law when it
states, Every person who is charged with a criminal offence (a) shall be presumed to
be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty. From the foregoing, it is thus seen
that the MNaghten rules are widely accepted as regards the defence of insanity in the
Zambian criminal justice jurisprudence as it is the case in most commonwealth
jurisdictions. This defence of insanity holds or tumbles depending on the conditions in
which the accused was at the time of the act or the omission that resulted into the
accused committing the act or omitting the act. It does not matter whether the accused
has a history of mental illness. If at the material time he was not affected by such
diseased mind, the defence fails completely. This is exemplified in the case of The
People v Mwanza14 in which the defence team argued citing the relevant provisions
found in Sections 160 and 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code Chapter 88 of which
states:
Where on the trial of a person charged with an offence punishable by death
or imprisonment the question arises, at the instance of the defence or
otherwise whether the accused is, by reason of unsoundness of mind or of
any other disability incapable of making a proper defence, the Court shall
inquire into and determine such question as soon as it arises.
And by Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is provided that:
Where a Court, in accordance with the provisions of section 160, finds an
accused incapable of making a proper defence, it shall enter a plea of not
guilty if it has not already done so and, to the extent that it has not already
done so, shall hear the evidence of the prosecution and (if any) for the
defence.
14 The People v Mwanza (2001) HJ/45
4

(2) At the close of such evidence as is mentioned in subsection (1), the court,
if it finds that the evidence as it stands(a) would not justify a conviction or a special finding under section 167, shall
acquit and discharge the accused; or
(b) would, in the absence of further evidence to the contrary, justify a
conviction, or a special finding under section 167, shall order the accused to
be detained during the Presidents pleasure;
(3) An acquittal and discharge under subsection (2) shall be without prejudice
to any implementation of the provisions of the Mental Disorders Act, and High
Court may, if it considers in any case that an inquiry under the provisions of
section 9 of that Act is desirable, direct that the person acquitted and
discharged be detained and taken before a magistrate for the purpose of
such an inquiry.
The Court acknowledged that insanity in legal terms means being afflicted by disease of
mind at the time of the commission or omission leading to the offence at hand.
Therefore, the test main argument would be, was the disease of the mind in control of
the accused such that they were not cognizant of what they were doing or that what
they were doing was wrong. The same point is cemented in the case of Joseph
Mutaba Tobo v The People15 in which it was stated that;
This exception expressed in the last part of the section is of tremendous
significance to the success or failure of this defence. It does not follow that
just because an accused suffers from a disease of the mind, his actions
should be dismissed as those of a lunatic. The kind of disease of the mind
which is relevant to this defence is that which produced that kind of act or
omission complained against. It therefore becomes necessary to show, on
the part of the accused, systematic course of conduct, propensitively leading
to the act or omission in question.
15 Joseph Mutaba Tobo v The People (1990 - 1992) Z.R. 140 (SC)
5

The backdrop of this case is the accused was charged with murder for killing a woman
after raping her. The defendant raised the defence of insanity and was taken to
Chainama Hills Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. One of the questions that the High
Court was faced with was whether every disease of the mind can sustain a defence of
insanity. The Court based its reason on Section 11 of the Penal Code 16 also known as
the presumption of sanity clause, which provides 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.

Conclusion
To successfully plead insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing
the act the defendant 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 he was doing what was wrong. The insanity defence takes the view
that it is possible for a person to be sane most of the time but suffer bouts of insanity.
The MNaghten Rules only require a defendant to be insane at the time of committing
an offence. It is clearly seen from the essay that the MNaghten Rule are given
cognizance in the Zambian criminal justice jurisprudence.

16 Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia


6

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Bronitt S and McSherry B, Principles of Criminal Law (3rd edn Thomson 2010)
Cairns D J A, Advocacy and The Making of The Adversarial Criminal Trial (Oxford
Clarendon Press 1865)
Elliot D W & Wood J C, A Casebook on Criminal Law (Sweet and Maxwell London
1963)
Golieb A E, Intention, and Knowing the Nature and Quality of an Act (Modern Law
Review 19516)
Hatchard J & Ndulo M, A Case Book on Criminal Law (University of Zambia Press
Lusaka 1983)
Moran R, Knowing Right from Wrong: The Insanity Defense of Daniel McNaughton
(New York The Free Press 1981)
West D J & Walk A, Daniel McNaughton: His Trial and the Aftermath (Ashford Gaskell
Books 1977)
White W, Insanity and the Criminal Law (Macmillan New York 1923)
Williams G, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd edn Stevens & Sons Publication London
1983)

Case Law
Joseph Mutaba Tobo v The People (1990 - 1992) Z.R. 140 (SC)
The People v Mwanza (2001) HJ/45

Legislation
7

Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia

Вам также может понравиться