DOCSLIB.ORG

The Common Law Defence of Automatism: a Quagmire for the Psychiatrist Keith J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Common Law Defence of Automatism: a Quagmire for the Psychiatrist Keith J BJPsych Advances (2015), vol. 21, 242–250 doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.113.012146 ARTICLE The common law defence of automatism: a quagmire for the psychiatrist Keith J. B. Rix Keith Rix is an Honorary Consultant evidence from at least one registered medical Forensic Psychiatrist in the Norfolk SUMMARY practitioner approved under section 12 of the and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust This article sets out the complicated and confused and Visiting Professor of Medical Mental Health Act 1983. Jurisprudence, Institute of Medicine, law on automatism and identifies the role of the University of Chester, where he psychiatrist, including paradoxically a role in cases The law is involved with the new MSc of non-psychiatric disorder where the law requires in Medicolegal Practice. He has evidence from a doctor approved under section 12 The nature of the defence recently been elected an Honorary of the Mental Health Act. Legal definitions of The automatism defence has no statutory basis; Fellow of the Faculty of Forensic and automatism are introduced. The internal/external Legal Medicine of the Royal College no Act of Parliament defines it, sets its limits distinction, evidential burden, burden of proof, of Physicians. and governs its application. It is a common law standard of proof, prior fault, intoxication and the Correspondence Professor Keith defence, depending on judicial decisions made over J.B. Rix, The Grange, 92 Whitcliffe degree of impairment illustrate how the courts Road, Cleckheaton BD19 3DR, UK. limit the defence. Detailed accounts are given the years and in different jurisdictions. Different Email: [email protected] of cases in which the defence of automatism judges, dealing with quite dissimilar cases, have has been based on psychiatric disorder and on produced differing definitions (Box 2). There are the effects of psychotropic drugs. Suggestions are made for approaches to assessment and medicolegal reporting. BOX 1 Conditions potentially giving rise to a LEARNING OBJECTIVES defence of automatism • Understand the role of the psychiatric expert in • Diabetes: cases of suspected automatism acute neuroglycopaenia • Understand the law relating to the mental subacute neuroglycopaenia condition defence of automatism hyperglycaemia • Know how to assess and report on cases of • Sleep disorders: alleged automatism for the courts sleepwalking (somnambulism) DECLARATION OF INTEREST confusional arousal/sudden arousal disorders None sexsomnia (sexual behaviour in sleep) obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome • Epilepsy A judge once referred to the law on automatism • Multiple sclerosis as a ‘quagmire’ (R v Quick [1973]). More recently, • Ophthalmic migraine Lord Justice Davis referred to one aspect as ‘illogical, little short of a disgrace and should • Cerebrovascular disease be abolished’ (Law Commission 2013: para • Cerebral tumour 1.46). However, law reform is slow. Automatism • Cerebral oedema is in a queue behind unfitness to plead. Even if • Concussion reform proposals result in a bill, there need to be • Psychiatric disorders: parliamentary will and time for it to be enacted. hysterical fugue In the meantime, psychiatrists are required even personality disorder where the condition is non-psychiatric (Box 1). This is because conditions such as diabetes and psychosis epilepsy are regarded in law as ‘internal’ causes post-traumatic stress disorder of automatism and raising the defence of ‘insane • Drug toxicity automatism’. In such cases, the court requires 242 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 02 Oct 2021 at 20:57:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. The common law defence of automatism with reference to differences in relation to burden BOX 2 Legal definitions of automatism and standard of proof. • Action without conscious volition (Gresson P in R v Cottle [1958]) The evidential burden, the burden of proof and the standard of proof • Action without any knowledge of acting, or acting with no consciousness of what is being done (Gresson P in Where the defence of automatism is raised, the Cottle) judge has to decide first whether it has a proper evidential foundation (‘the evidential burden’). If • An involuntary movement of the body or limbs of a person following complete destruction of voluntary not, it cannot proceed. control (Watmore v Jenkins [1962]) If there is a proper evidential foundation, the judge has to decide whether it is insane or sane • An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex or a automatism. If it is insane automatism, the burden convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not of proof (‘the legal burden’) rests on the defence to conscious of what he is doing (Denning LJ in Bratty v prove its case on a balance of probabilities (what A-G for Northern Ireland [1963]) is known by convention as ‘the civil standard’). If it is sane automatism, the prosecution bears the • The state of a person who, though capable of action, is not conscious of what he is doing; this means legal burden of proving all the elements in the unconscious, involuntary action, and it is a defence offence necessary to establish guilt and it has to because the mind does not go with what is done do so to ‘the criminal standard’ of proof, which (Viscount Kilmour LC in Bratty ) means ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (Woolmington • Total alienation of reason amounting to a complete v DPP [1942]). This means that the prosecution absence of self-control (Lord Hope in R v Ross (1991)) must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a voluntary act that satisfied theactus reus requirement for the offence. This is a high hurdle for the prosecution. It is sufficient for the defence two particular features: the lack, or an altered to raise no more than a doubt as to the defendant’s state, of consciousness and the absence of volition. guilt for the prosecution to be unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The internal/external distinction Where there are issues of both insane and sane The internal/external distinction in automatism automatism, the judge has to distinguish them in is particularly troublesome (Table 1). Where summing up to the jury and remind them of the automatism results from an ‘external’ cause different burdens and standards of proof. It is a such as head injury, it is a ‘non-insane (sane) tall order for many jurors to make sense of this. automatism’ (hereinafter ‘sane automatism’). It is a complete defence. It results in acquittal. Where Prior fault it is an ‘internal’ cause such as epilepsy, it is an The defence may be difficult or rendered invalid ‘insane automatism’, it amounts to (legal) insanity where the accused was at fault in getting into such and disposal is under section 24 of the Domestic a condition. Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (the DVCA), It was withheld from a driver who fell asleep which has amended the disposal options under the at the wheel, because he should have pulled over Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to when he began to feel drowsy (Kay v Butterworth Plead) Act 1991 (the CP(IUP)A). (1945)), and from another who drove while Various problems result. It is quite inconsistent with medical, if not public, thinking to categorise TABLE 1 The current classification of automatisms someone with diabetes, for example, as insane. The stigma of ‘insanity’ can be a disincentive to Some accepted causes Verdict Outcome raising the defence. Outcomes can be illogical, if not nonsensical. Someone with diabetes who fails Insane Epilepsy Not guilty Disposal under automatism Hyperglycaemia by reason of the Domestic to take their insulin and, in a hyperglycaemic Cerebral tumour insanity (the Violence, Crime state, carries out what is alleged to be a criminal Multiple sclerosis ‘special verdict’) and Victims Act act is treated as insane. If they adhere to their Sleepwalking 2004 Arteriosclerosis insulin regime but fail to eat and, in a state of Hypoglycaemia hypoglycaemia, carry out the same act they Non-insane Head injury Not guilty Acquittal are acquitted. Internal and external factors (sane) Anaesthetic can operate together. The jury have not only to automatism Sneezing consider their relative contributions, but to do so Post-traumatic stress disorder BJPsych Advances (2015), vol. 21, 242–250 doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.113.012146 243 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 02 Oct 2021 at 20:57:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. Rix sleepwalking after drinking alcohol, because he of driving without due care and attention was had previously experienced sleepwalking episodes upheld. after drinking (Finegan v Heywood (2000)). It failed The defence also failed where, following a where a driver suffered an acute hypoglycaemic collision, the driver’s ability to circumvent a police episode: he should not have been driving because road block was regarded as evidence of responding 3 months previously he had been involved in an to his surroundings and being in full voluntary accident when hypoglycaemic (R v Marison (1997)). control (R v Isitt (1978)). Sentencing a driver with diabetes for causing This rule is applied inconsistently. In sleep- death by dangerous driving, the judge said that walking cases, the ability to start a car engine ‘monitoring of his condition and his blood sugar does not seem to raise an issue as to the extent levels in particular were to put it mildly grossly to which the mind controls the body. The defence mismanaged and grossly inadequate’ (Law was successful where a sleepwalking defendant Commission 2013: p. 236, para. B.54). started the engine to drive to the police station Even a driver who has swerved in response to a having already driven several miles, through seven wasp that has flown into their car may be at fault sets of traffic lights, to his in-laws, where he killed for not stopping to deal with the distraction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Induced Intoxication
    PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA LAW REFORM COMMITTEE Criminal Liability for Self- Induced Intoxication REPORT Ordered to be Printed Melbourne Government Printer May 1999 No 53 Session 1998–99 Parliament of Victoria, Australia Law Reform Committee Melbourne Bibliography ISBN 0-7311-5265-4 Cover Design & Graphics: Paul Angus ii C OMMITTEE M EMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN *Mr Victor Perton, MP DEPUTY CHAIR *Mr Neil Cole, MP MEMBERS *Mr Florian Andrighetto, MP (Chairman Subcommittee) Ms Mary Delahunty, MP *Hon Carlo Furletti, MLC Hon Monica Gould, MLC *Mr Noel Maughan, MP Mr Alister Paterson, MP *Mr Tony Robinson, MP * denotes membership of Criminal Liability for Self-Induced Intoxication Inquiry Subcommittee The Committee’s address is — Level 8, 35 Spring Street MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3000 Telephone inquiries — (03) 9651 3644 Facsimile — (03) 9651 3674 Email — [email protected] Internet— http://www.lawreform.org.au iii iv C OMMITTEE S TAFF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Mr Douglas Trapnell RESEARCH OFFICER Ms Jenny Baker OFFICE MANAGER Ms Angelica Vergara v vi C ONTENTS Committee Membership........................... ............................................................................................... iii Committee Staff ........................................................................................................................................v Chairman’s Foreword .............................................................................................................................. xi Functions of the Committee...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    Part A Bar Examinations 2015 Criminal Law Subject Coordinator: Dr S. Chandra Mohan School of Law, Singapore Management University Singapore Institute of Legal Education Part A Bar Examinations 2015 SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EDUCATION Part A Bar Examinations 2015 Criminal Law (Version: 14 May 2015) INTRODUCTION The Part A Bar Examination in Criminal Law is designed to test whether overseas law graduates have obtained sufficient knowledge of the fundamental principles of criminal law in Singapore and understand how these are applied within Singapore’s criminal justice system. It is important that students keep in mind the relevant local legislative provisions and the court decisions that have interpreted these provisions (see the detailed Reading List). Singapore’s criminal law is codified and is principally contained in the Penal Code which was enacted in 1870. It is based on the Indian Penal Code and its provisions are not always similar to the English Criminal Law which its drafter, Lord Macaulay, sought to improve. Two core values of such a written Code that students must bear in mind are accessibility of the penal provisions and comprehensibility so that the layman can obtain and understand the law better. The use of ‘explanations’ and ‘illustrations’ in the sections, which give examples of the application of the provisions, are unique to the Penal Code. As the Penal Codes of India and Malaysia are similar to our Code, cases from these jurisdictions are of persuasive value in interpreting identical provisions. There are other statutes which provide for specific offences such as the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
    [Show full text]
  • A Legal Response to Colin Holmes
    J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.17.2.86 on 1 June 1991. Downloaded from Journal ofmedical ethics, 1991, 17, 86-88 Psychopathic disorder: a category mistake? A legal response to Colin Holmes Irene Mackay University ofManchester Author's abstract diminished responsibility upon which I propose to comment. Holmes is concerned with a conflict between law and The absence of any established medical or medicine about the problem ofpsychopathy, in particular psychiatric definition of 'moral insanity' or as it relates to homicide. 'psychopathy' is noteworthy in this article by Colin He looksfor a consistent set oflegal principles based on Holmes. It is not clear whether either can be referred to a variety ofmedical concepts and in doing so criticises the correctly as an illness or whether the two could be courtfor its commonsense approach, its disregardfor synonymous. Moral insanity is referred to as 'absence medical evidence andfor employing lay notions of of conscience', 'no capacity for true moral feelings', responsibility and illness. 'depravity', and 'absence of moral scruple'. This commentary explores how Holmes's notionsfit into Psychopathy appears to mean 'total lack ofcopyright. existing legal rules and explains how the court seeks the compunction or consequent moral emotion', 'absence assistance ofmedical evidence when looking at the evidence of conscience', 'inability to experience guilt' and 'lack as a whole to enable it to decide upon issues ofdefence, of respect for the moral claims of others'. which involve legal and not medical concepts. Holmes is concerned with the conflict between law There is a difficulty inherent in this paper, as it seeks to and medicine about what he refers to as the problem of psychopathy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of R. V. Stone with R. V. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism
    ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY A Comparison of R. v. Stone with R. v. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism Graham D. Glancy, MB, ChB, John M. Bradford, MB, ChB, and Larissa Fedak, BPE, MSc, LLB J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 30:541–7, 2002 Both the medical and legal professions recognize that The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis- some criminal actions take place in the absence of orders, fourth edition (DMS-IV),3 does not define consciousness and intent, thereby inferring that these automatism, although it does include several diag- actions are less culpable. However, experts enter a noses, such as delirium or parasomnias, that could be legal quagmire when medical expert evidence at- the basis for automatism. tempts to find some common meaning for the terms The seminal legal definition is that of Lord Den- “automatism” and “unconsciousness.” ning in Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland: 1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines autom- . .an act which is done by the muscles without any control by atism as “Involuntary action. (Psych) action per- the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion; or an formed unconsciously or subconsciously.” This act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, seems precise and simple until we attempt to de- such as an act done while suffering from concussion or while 4 fine unconscious or subconscious. Fenwick2 notes sleepwalking. that consciousness is layered and that these layers This was developed by Canadian courts in R. v. Ra- largely depend on subjective behavior that is ill de- bey: fined.
    [Show full text]
  • Intoxication and Legal Defences Quazi Haque & Ian Cumming
    Haque & Cumming Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2003), vol. 9, 144–151 Intoxication and legal defences Quazi Haque & Ian Cumming Abstract Intoxication with alcohol and drugs is commonly associated with criminal offending. The relationship between intoxication and criminal culpability is complex and may be of psychiatric relevance, especially if a mental condition legal defence is being considered. This article outlines the legal issues (such as they apply in England and Wales) of which psychiatrists should be aware when preparing medico-legal opinions about mentally disordered offenders. Intoxication with alcohol or drugs is the obvious Box 1 Other UK jurisdictions theme of certain charges such as drunk and dis- orderly conduct or drink-driving. In other offences, The law in Scotland attaches rather less intoxication may be a factor that can affect or importance to subjective mens rea than that complicate the issue of criminal responsibility. in England and Wales. Most Scottish criminal Approximately 50% of violent offences and charges allege no mental element at all but property offences are committed after drugs or refer only to the proscribed harm. The mens alcohol have been consumed, and although con- rea terms such as recklessness and negligence sumption may not be directly linked to the offence, are often interpreted with an objectivist slant. there is often a strong association between the two. Liability for causing inadvertent harm while Psychiatrists are frequently asked to comment on drunk departs little from normal principles. the effects of intoxication on mental responsibility. The distinction between offences of basic and Although the legal defences of insanity and dimin- specific intent has therefore not developed to ished responsibility are familiar to psychiatrists, the the same extent as south of the border.
    [Show full text]
  • Defences, Mitigation and Criminal Responsibility
    Chapter 12 Defences, mitigation and criminal responsibility Page Index 1-12-1 Introduction 1-12-2 Part 1 - Defences 1-12-3 General defences 1-12-4 Intoxication/drunkenness due to drugs/alcohol 1-12-4 Self defence 1-12-4 Use of force in prevention of crime 1-12-5 Mistake 1-12-5 Duress 1-12-6 Necessity 1-12-6 Insanity 1-12-6 Automatism 1-12-6 Other defences 1-12-7 Provocation 1-12-7 Alibi 1-12-7 Diminished responsibility 1-12-7 Consent 1-12-7 Superior orders 1-12-7 Part 2 - Mitigation 1-12-9 Part 3 - Criminal responsibility 1-12-10 Intention 1-12-10 Recklessness 1-12-10 Negligence 1-12-10 Lawful excuse or reasonable excuse – the burden of proof 1-12-11 Evidential burden 1-12-11 Lawful excuse 1-12-11 Reasonable excuse 1-12-11 JSP 830 MSL Version 2.0 1-12-1 AL42 35 Chapter 12 Defences, mitigation and criminal responsibility Introduction 1. This chapter is divided into three parts: a. Part 1 - Defences (paragraphs 4 - 28); b. Part 2 - Mitigation (paragraphs 29 - 31); and c. Part 3 - Criminal responsibility (paragraphs 32 - 44). 2. This chapter provides guidance on these matters to those involved in the administration of Service discipline at unit level. Related chapters are Chapter 9 (Summary hearing and activation of suspended sentences of Service detention), Chapter 6 (Investigation, charging and mode of trial), and Chapter 11 (Summary hearing - dealing with evidence). 3. This is not a detailed analysis of the law on the most common defences likely to be put forward by an accused, but when read in conjunction with the chapters mentioned above, should provide enough information for straightforward cases to be dealt with and ensure that staffs can identify when a case should be referred for Court Martial (CM) trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Defences to Homicide Issues Paper
    Defences to Homicide Issues Paper Victorian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 4637 Melbourne Victoria 3001 Australia DX 144 Melbourne Level 10 10–16 Queen Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia Telephone +61 3 8619 8619 1300 666 555 (within Victoria) Facsimile +61 3 8619 8600 TTY 1300 666 557 [email protected] www.lawreform.vic.gov.au ii Please note that this Issues Paper contains a number of case studies, each of which is based on a real case. Where possible, given names, not family names, are used. Where the given name is not available, the family name is used. The case studies also contain details of the offences, where this is necessary to explain the issues involved. These may be disturbing to some readers. Published by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. The Victorian Law Reform Commission was established under the Victorian Law Reform Commission Act 2000 as a central agency for developing law reform in Victoria. This Issues Paper reflects the law as at 31 March 2002. © 2002 Victorian Law Reform Commission. This work is protected by the laws of copyright. Except for any uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) or equivalent overseas legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced, in any manner or in any medium, without the written permission of the publisher. All rights reserved. The publications of the Victorian Law Reform Commission follow the Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc, Australian Guide to Legal Citations (2000). Note: Unless otherwise stated, all references to legislation in this Issues Paper are to Victorian legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Final Outline - April 2012 Prof
    CRIMINAL LAW FINAL OUTLINE - APRIL 2012 PROF. COLLEEN SMITH JAMIE MYRAH ! Burden and Quantum of Proof! 2 Actus Reus! 3 Mens Rea! 7 Sexual Assault! 10 Defences! 12 Mistake of Fact - Non-Sexual Assault! 12 Mistake of Fact - Sexual Assault! 13 Mistake of Law! 14 Officially Induced Mistake of Law! 16 Intoxication! 17 Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder (NCRMD)! 18 Provocation! 20 Self-Defence - No Provocation! 22 Self-Defence - Possible Provocation (McIntosh)! 24 Self-Defence - Section 37! 25 Automatism - Common Law Defence! 26 Duress - Section 17 & Common Law Defence! 28 Excuse vs. Justification! 30 Burden and Quantum of Proof Proof of Guilt • elements of the offence (Crown has to prove BRD) • actus reus (physical act) • mens rea (mental element) • absence of any lawful defence or justification that arises from the evidence Golden Thread • presumption of innocence (s. 11(d)) • requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Source: Woolmington v. DPP, 1935, HL UK) Three Standards of Proof (see chart) • proof beyond a reasonable doubt • presumption of innocence requires that the onus is on the Crown to prove all elements of the offence • breach of presumption of innocence (i.e. insanity; statutory reverse onus provisions) requires justification (Oakes Test) • BRD is short of proof to an absolute certainty but is stronger than "probably guilty" (Lifchus); definition summarized at p. 292: • inextricably intertwined with presumption of innocence • burden rests on the prosecution throughout trial & never shifts to the accused • not
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Insanity Defence Reform : Capturing a New Spirit of Mcnaughtan
    CANADIAN INSANITY DEFENCE REFORM: CAJX"I'R1NGA NEW SPIRIT OF MCNAUGHTAN. Cheryl S. Angelomatis B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1981 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (CRIMINOLOGY) in the Department of Criminology 0 Cheryl S. Angelomatis 1983 Ib SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY October, 1983 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Cheryl S. Angelomatis Degree: MASTER OF ARTS (CRIMINOLOGY) Title of thesis: CANADIAN INSANITY DEFENCE REFORM: CAPTURING A NEW SPIRIT OF McNAUGHTAN. Examining Committee: -. ,/John W. Ekstedt Chairperson, Associate ~rdfesbor,Crkinology Simon N. vep- ones Senior Supe isor, Associate Professor, Criminology - Ib - - - Duncan Chappell, Progessor, CripinoTogy ~ki-1Boyd I Associate ~rofe!&sor,Criminology - - Yudi th Osborne, External Examiner, Instructor, Criminology Date Approved: November 21, 1983 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University L ibrary, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or othar educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copy i ng or publication of this work for financ ial gain shall no-i be a I lowed without my written permission.
    [Show full text]
  • 545 a Critique of Canadian Criminal Legislation Part
    545 A CRITIQUE OF CANADIAN CRIMINAL LEGISLATION PART ONE I.Introduction Scope of the study The main object of this study is an examination of the concepts of Canadian legislators as to the nature of criminality and their attitude toward the problem of crime. Its purpose is not an exposition, either descriptive or critical, of Canadian criminal law and procedure. It is to be noted at the outset that all the legislation in force in Canada which in some way pertains to the subject of crime is by no means to be found in some section of the Criminal Codel. However, in view of the fact that the Code, 'with its 1152 sections, deals with the great bulk of Canadian criminal law and procedure, it seems justifiable to assume that its history may be taken as fairly representative of the development of Canadian criminal legislation. Therefore the present discussion will be confined primarily to the Criminal Code, with only incidental reference to other statutes. It will be an attempt to consider, in a general way, the sources of the Code, the cir- cumstances surrounding its adoption, its underlying principles, and the course of amendment since it was first established . The matter which will be made the subject of a more detailed consideration will be the attitudes of the legislators towards the crime problem and the results thereof as shown in the development of the Code from the date of its adoption to the present time. To this end, after a discussion of the back- * Submitted as a thesis in the seminar in Criminology in Relation to Criminal Law and Procedure by Professor Sheldon Glueck, and in the seminar in Legislation by Professor James McC.
    [Show full text]
  • Cook Islands Justices Bench Book, Second Edition
    THE COOK ISLANDS JUSTICES BENCH BOOK Second edition 2012 The Cook Islands Justices Bench Book ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The second edition of the Cook Islands Justices Bench Book was developed by Christopher Roper, in a project conducted by the Pacific Judicial Development Programme. Significant contributions were made by the following people in the Cook Islands, particularly in a three day series of meetings in February 2012: Mataira Ake JP Claudine Henry-Anguna, Registrar of the High Court Tekeu Framhein JP Georgina Keenan-Williams JP John Kenning JP Teati Mokoroa, Deputy Registrar of the High Court Kautai Ruaporo, Court Clerk Tuingariki Short JP Tauei Solomon JP Tangi Taoro JP Carmen Temata JP Tinirau Tupa, Court Clerk Taepae Tuteru JP © High Court of the Cook Islands i The Cook Islands Justices Bench Book QUICK GUIDE TO FIND WHAT YOU NEED Adjournments Go to Tab 12 Bail applications Go to Tab 13 Child witnesses Go to Tab 19 – section 19.5.4 Contempt of court Go to Tab 19 – section 19.6 Guilty pleas Go to Tab 11 – section 11.5 Jurisdiction of justices Go to Tab 3 – section 3.5 Name suppression Go to Tab 14 No case to answer Go to Tab 16 – section 16.6 Probation Go to Tab 15 – section 15.5.2 Remanding in custody Go to Tab 13 – section 13.3 ii The Cook Islands Justices Bench Book CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS IN BRIEF FOUNDATIONS 1 The constitutional context 2 The law in the Cook Islands 3 Introduction to the High Court 4 Dealing with evidence 5 Criminal law and human rights 6 Principles of criminal responsibility 7 Judicial conduct IN THE COURT
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Defendants with Psychiatric Impairment: Prevalence, Probabilities and Rates Ellen Hochstedler Steury
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 84 Article 3 Issue 2 Summer Summer 1993 Criminal Defendants with Psychiatric Impairment: Prevalence, Probabilities and Rates Ellen Hochstedler Steury Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Hochstedler Steury, Criminal Defendants with Psychiatric Impairment: Prevalence, Probabilities and Rates, 84 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 352 (Summer 1993) This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091 -4169/93/8402-352 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 84, No. 2 Copyright © 1993 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printedin U.S.A. CRIMINOLOGY CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WITH PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT: PREVALENCE, PROBABILITIES AND RATES ELLEN HOCHSTEDLER STEURY, PH.D.* I. INTRODUCTION This Article presents the findings of a study designed to esti- mate the proportion of individuals in a given criminal defendant population who were also treated for psychiatric impairment. This inquiry, based on data from Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, from the period 1981-1985, is of interest for both practical and theoretical reasons.' The focus of this Article, however, is the theoretical inter- est in
    [Show full text]