Forensic psychiatry: burden of proof for insanity defence: practice question

Try it

Original practice item, not a recalled exam question. Nothing here is recorded.

The answer and the reasoning

C. The law presumes sanity, so the accused must raise the plea and establish it on a preponderance of probability

Every person is presumed sane, and under the Evidence Act the burden of proving an exception such as unsoundness of mind lies on the accused. The standard is preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant time is the time of the act, judged from conduct, motive and medical evidence.

Option by option

• A. The court presumes insanity if the accused has ever consulted a psychiatrist

  A past psychiatric consultation does not create a presumption of insanity at the time of the act.

• B. A psychiatrist's certificate alone proves insanity and ends the trial

  A certificate is only evidence; the court decides on all the circumstances.

• C. The law presumes sanity, so the accused must raise the plea and establish it on a preponderance of probability (correct)

  Correct. Sanity is presumed and the accused must show insanity at the time of the offence on probabilities.

• D. The prosecution must prove sanity beyond reasonable doubt in every case

  The prosecution does not have to disprove insanity in every case, since sanity is presumed.

Source note: Original NextPrep sample item — pending expert review. This item is original practice material awaiting independent expert review, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.

More Forensic Medicine questions