UNSOUND MIND accused was labouring under such a defect of
reason, from disease of mind, as not to know
S.84 of PC the nature and quality of the act he was
Nothing is an offence if it was done by a doing, or if he did know it, that he did not
person who at the time of doing it : know what he was doing was wrong.
- By reason of unsound mind In McNaughten’s case, insanity is a disease of
- Incapable of knowing the nature of the the mind which cause defect in reasoning.
act/he is doing what is either wrong/contrary It must disease of mind otherwise it will be no
to the law insanity.
It is a malfunctioning of the mind in reasoning
Unsoundness mind and understanding which caused by the
- Mind does not function properly disease.
- A man can be said to be of unsound mind if It may be physical or functional psychoses in
he cannot judge the consequence of the acts origin
or distinguish between right or wrong and
good or bad. S.84 of PC
- It is not a medical concept but a legal
PP v Ismail Ibrahim concept and it is a legal test not a medical
In a case where S.84 of PC is in issue, 3 test.
principles of law requires consideration : - It concerns on the cognitive or knowingness
a)That every person is presumed to be sane of the accused person.
until proven the contrary
b)The onus of the prosecution is to establish The legal and medical concept may overlap,
that he had the necessary mens rea to but may be considered in unsoundness mind
commit the offence but may not be considered in medical
c)The onus of proving insanity is on the insanity.
accused under S.105 of Evidence Act 1950 E.g: - An impulse to kill would be considered
medical insanity but not disease of mind
BOP - Accused person under the MCNaughten Rule or unsoundess
- S.105 of Evidence Act 1950 mind under Section 84 Penal Code.
- A person defective in intelligence
PP v Misbah bin Saat or suffering from epilepsy may fall within the
If the accused can establish that he was of scope of Section 84 though he is not medical
unsound mind at the time of doing the insane.
wrongful act, he is entitled to raise the
defense of insanity under S.84 of PC. - Unsoundness mind under Section 84 is
wider than the McNaughten’s Rules as it does
John a/k Nyumbei not matter whether the defect in reasoning
Medical opinion usually tendered as proof of was due to degeneration of the brain or some
unsound mind. But evidence of the other cause.
circumstances after the crimes or subsequent - It does not only includes ‘disease of mind’
conduct of the accused would be relevant in but also mental deficiencies which may not
determining whether the accused is unsound result from disease of the mind.
mind or not at the time of committing of the
crime. Other forms of mental disorder :
If he was trying to destroy or concealed the
evidence after committing the crime that will Dementia & other forms of psychtic
not support the defence if unsound mind. disease
Difference between unsoundness of mind in
S.84 of PC and insanity in McNaughten’s rules Delusions : If a man believes he has lost
all his money and is suffering from fatal
McNaughten’s rule : illness, although there is evidence that
A defence on insanity, it must established he is still solvent and has no physical
that at the time of committing the act, the disease, then he is suffering from
1
delusion. Where the condition does not produce a
disease of mind, the onus on the prosecution
Hallucination : If he hears voices or sees to exclude the alleged incapacity
visions which no one else can hear or
sees, and which are in fact projections Irresistible Impulse
from his own fantasy, then he is - Affect the cognitive and unable to control
hallucinated. his will-power
Illusion : If he mistakes his physician or Jusoh v PP
nurse for his father/mother, or for the The appellant was found guilty of murder.
devil to take him away, then he is The appellant suddenly ran amok and slashed
suffering from illusion. his sister-in-law and her 2 daughters to death
with parang and then killed a man who was a
Mohd Suhaimi Abdul Aziz complete stranger and inflicted severe
The accused was charged for the murder of injuries on 2 young men. A medical officer
his wife under Section 302 Penal Code. Based who saw the appellant about 2 hours after his
on the post mortem report it was revealed arrest described him as ‘in daze’ and
that the deceased had suffered 26 stab ‘overwhelmed with woe’.
wounds. The accused claimed that he was Held : The court acquitted him on the reason
feeling very, very depressed and that his mind of unsoundness of mind.
was full of negative thoughts. He heard the
voices talking to him directing him to do Elements :
something to his wife. It was like taking over 1) At the time of doing the act
his mind and taking over control of him. He 2) Incapable of knowing the nature of the act,
remembered going to the bathroom and or Incapable of knowing that he was doing
breaking down the door and later he didn’t what was wrong or contrary to law
know what happened. He only remembered
going out the house and getting into his car.
Held : The accused was unsound mind at the
time of the incident and did not know that his 1) At the time of doing
action was wrong in law.
Kofri Mustafar v PP
Automatism The accused must be unsound mind at the
- Where a person performes unwilled acts time of commission of the offence regardless
- Relates to the requirement of voluntariness it is permanent or temporary
and mens rea and it is done by muscles
without any control by the mind. - It is irrelevant if he was suffering from the
alleged condition before or after the act and
Insane automatism the fact that he was sound mind when he was
- The primary cause of the abnormality is examined does not mean that he is sound
internal to the accused mind at the time of offence
Abdul Razak Dalek PP v Jong Chin Hin
A successful result plea of insane automatism At the of the accused doing the wrongful act
will result in a verdict of not guilty by reason of killing, she was by reason of unsoundness
of insanity and an order of detention in a of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of
medical institution will be made. the act or incapable of knowing the she was
doing was either wrong or contrary to law.
Non-insane automatism
Includes factors of external origin such as 2) Incapable of knowing
blow to the head, alcohol, drugs and - Incapable of knowing whether it was right or
medication. wrong,
- The capacity to know is different from what
Re Pappathi Ammal one knows.
2
Ashiruddin Ahmed v King
Lee Ah Chye v PP A disjunctive view was taken and the
The appellant was convicted at Penang for appellant was held incapable of knowing that
murder and was sentenced to death. A his act was ‘wrong’
married woman was stabbed to death by the
appellant. 22 stab wounds were inflicted on
her body and her daughter was also stabbed
but not fattally.
The appellant’s story was that the mother of
the girl left the car to relieve the necessaries
of nature, then he heard some noise and saw
an enomous snake attacking the woman and
her daughter. He rushed to the spot with a
knife which was not his and he happened to
find that what he had stabbed was not a
snake but the woman and her daughter.
Held : here must a state of mind which is
incapacity of knowing the nature of the act or
incapacity of knowing it is wrong but in every
case this must exist by reason of unsoundness
mind
2 limbs in S.84 of PC
At the time of doing the act, by reason of
unsoundness mind he did not know the
nature of the act or if he knew the nature of
the act he did not know that it was either
wrong or contrary to the law
Nature of the act :
The accused may still claimed the defence
under s. 84 if he has killed someone and he
knows the nature of the act but at the time of
doing it he is unsound mind and he does not
know the act is either wrong or contrary to
law
Definition of wrong :
Conjunctive approach - Incapable of
knowing that the act was wrong and that
it was contrary to the law
Geron Ali v Emperor
In this case a conjunctive view was taken
when the accused was found incapable of
knowing that what he was doing was ‘either
wrong or contrary to law’ by reason of
unsoundness of mind when he killed
Disjunctive approach - Knew that the act
was contrary to law but thought that it
was right to do so
