TNAG-0604-FCO40-752-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 158

-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