-115-
of probabilities.
This is what the Defence will have to
prove to establish a defence on the ground of insanity,
it must be clearly proved that at the time of commiting
the act the 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 that if he
did know, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong
in law. They have to show you then, once again, that at
the time of committing the act, the 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 that if he did know what he was doing that
he did not know what he was doing was wrong in law. So
did he know when he was doing it, that it was wrong in law.
Did he or did he not know the nature and quality of his
act. He says on the one hand automatism "I don't know.
I wasn't aware of what was going on". On the other, I
have disease of the mind, defective reason by virtue of
disease of the mind. I do not know the nature and quality
of my act. And so it falls then to you to decide on the
evidence that you have seen and heard here, whether that
act was voluntary or not. Because Members of the Jury,
whether the accused was sane or insane in the legal sense,
at the time when the act was committed, is a question for
you. So you have automatism and insanity.
5
10
15
20
25
Members of the Jury, on the facts of this case, in
the light of the pscyhiatrist's evidence, the basic
problem of the accused was mental retardation.
So in
my view you can dispose of these two defences,
and the insanity issue at one and the same time. It's
either one or the other because it all rests on the same
set of facts. You may find that the act was involuntary,
automatism
30