INSANITY (S.

84)

6.1 Definition

The defence of unsoundness of mind is contained in s.84 of the Penal Code

The law presumes that people are sane unless proven otherwise
BOP is on the accused
The salient features of the defence are that the accused must have been suffering
from an unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence, which had the effect of
destroying altogether his or her cognitive capacity to know the nature of the act
performed or that such conduct was either wrong or contrary to law.
unsoundness of mind which impaired their capacity to know the nature of
their conduct or to know that it was either wrong or contrary to law
Although people who successfully plead the defence of insanity are free from
blame, they pose threat to society and to themselves. Therefore, they are in need
of treatment.
It is inappropriate for them to receive an unqualified acquittal and to be released
unconditionally into society

6.2 Section 84 of the penal code

Section 84 of PC states that: nothing is an offence which is done by a person who

at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of
knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or
contrary to law
6.3 Distinctions between section 84 and MNaughten rules

MNaughten rules - Daniel McNaghten was charged with the murder of Edward
Drummond, the private secretary of Sir Robert Peel, the third Prime Minister of
England. McNaughten was suffering fr delusions that Sir Robert had injured him.
He had intended to kill Sir Robert but shot and killed Drummond, mistaking him
for the former. He was acquitted on a defence of insanity. It was due to the disease
of mind leading to the insanity.

MNaughten rules :

a) Every man is presumed to be sane and to possesss a sufficient degree of reason to

be responsible for his crimes until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction
b) To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at
the time of the committing of the act, the party 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
c) If he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong

MNaghten Rules Section 84 of Penal Code

There must be a disease of mind s84 is said to be wider than

which gave rise to a defect in McNaughten Rules.
reason. There must be an The phrase unsoundness of mind
impairment of the mind. Unless would include disease of mind
the defect was from disease of causing a defect in reason and all
mind, there was no insanity. The mental deficiencies wc may not
Rules concern with the disease of result fr disease of the mind.
the mind In Kong Nen Siew v. Lim Siew
Hong (1971) 1 MLJ 262, Seah J
stated that for the purpose of
proceedings, the words
unsoundness of Mind or
insanity or mental illness
would be deemed to bear the
same meaning, there being no
evidence nor was there any
intention that these expressions
hold different meaning.
 M'Naghten
Section 84
Rules

1.At the time of doing it 1.At the time of the

committing of the act

2.By reason of unsoundness 2.The party accused was labouring under

of mind such a defect of reason

3. --- 3.from

4. --- 4. Disease of the mind

5.Is incapable of
5.As not to know
knownig

6.The nature and quality of the act

6.The nature of the act he was doing

Or that he is doing what is either Or, if he did know it, that he did not know he
wrong or contrary to law was doing what was wrong
 Elements of the defence

Ingredients of Defence S84

By reason of That he is doing

At the time Incapable of Nature of the
unsoundness what is either
of doing it knowing act
of mind wrong or contrary
to law
Unsoundness Different between
either unsoundness of Physical nature
permanent/ mind vs disease of and quality of (i) Wrong
temporary mind the act

McNaghten the disease of

mind give rise to a defect of (ii) Either
reason impairment of the wrong or
mind. contrary to law

Eg: Disease of Mind

i. insane delusions, hallucinatons &
illusions
ii.Mania
iii. Insane automatism
iv. Mental deficiency
v. Irresistible impluse

a) At the time of the alleged offence, the accused was suffering from unsoundness of
mind

Case : Public Prosecutor v Arokiasamy a/l Alphonso

Held: the accused must produce evidence to prove he was of unsoundness of mind
at the time he committed the offence. In the present case the defence had not
produced any evidence that shows he was of unsound mind at the material time. A
mere statement in the accused's unsworn statement that he did not realise what
actually happened cannot, by any stretch of imagination amount to evidence to
 prove he was of unsound mind at the particular time. It is a mere statement. Nothing
more!

b) The unsoundness of mind negated the accuseds capacity to know the nature of
the act OR that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law

PC not define
Question of fact for the court to be decided in the light of clinical evidence.
Case : PP v Rozman bin Jusoh & Anor [1995] SLR 317
The accused had been convicted of drug trafficking offence and his appeal was
rejected.
Held: subnormal intellect was not unsoundness of mind and, in the event, the
appellant was not so intellectually disabled as to be incapable of knowing the
nature of his act or of discerning that it was wrong or contrary to law.

c) Incapable of knowing
S84 requires the accuseds unsoundness of mind to cause him to be incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or that it was either wrong or contrary to the law.
Case :Lakshimini v State [1959] 60 Cri LJ 1033
Held: The capacity to know a thing is quite different from what a person knows.
The former is the potentiality, the latter is the result of it.
The incapacity must be complete.
A partial incapacity is insufficient to support the defence.

d) The nature of the act

The unsoundness of mind was of a kind and severity which destroyed the accuseds
capacity to know the nature of the act OR that it was either wrong or contrary to law.
The meaning of nature of an act is not defined in s84.
Eg: cutting a persons throat in the belief that one was slicing a loaf of a bread.
Must prove a total incapacity to know what one was doing.
Case : R v Porter [1933] 55 CLR 182
 Held: the accused was acquitted on the ground of insanity and concluded that his
mental disorder was such that he could not appreciate the physical thing he was
doing and its consequences.

e) Wrong or Contrary to Law

This defence is invoked in most cases.
i.e. the accused does have the capacity to know what he was doing BUT contends
that, as a result of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing either that the
act was wrong or that it was contrary to law.

Other Forms of Psychotic Illness

Delusions, hallucinations & illusions may occur as symptoms of dementia or

other psychotic illness.
Meaning that the forms of dementia or psychotic illness can be regarded as the
condition of unsoundness of mind.

Delusions: a mistaken belief which has for the patient the force of conviction, and
is firmly held despite all evidence to the contrary.
e.g; A man believes he has lost all his money and is suffering from a fatal illness,
despite the production of concrete evidence that he is still solvent and has no
demonstrable physical disease.

Hallucination: is a sensory perception wc does not correspond to any stimulus fr

outside world.
e.g: A man hears voices or sees visions wc no one else can hear or see, and wc are
in fact projections fr his own fantasy.
 Illusion: is a sensory perception wc although produced by external stimulus is
misinterpret by the patient in purely subjective terms.
e.g: A man mistakes his physician or nurse is his father or mother or for the devil
to take him away.
Case : Lemos E (1970)
The accused who was suffering from schizophrenia, was under a delusion and
hallucination when he killed the deceased. The accused person was under such
delusion that he did not know the nature of the act; or that it was wrong or
contrary to law

In PP V Muhamad Suhaimi Abdul Aziz (2005) 2 CLJ 826

The accused was charged for the murder of his wife under s. 302 PC at their
house in Kuala Lumpur. The post Mortem showed that she had suffered 26 stab
wounds .In his evidence, the accused stated that he was feeling very depressed
and that his mind was full of negative thoughts. He then said:
I was smoking one cigarette after another trying to think what is going on in my
thoughts. I was feeling negative about a lot of things. Then I heard voices talking
to me directing me to do something to my wife. It was like taking over my mind.
It was taking over control of me. I remember going to the bathroom and
 breaking down the door. Then I dont know what happened. I remember getting
out of the house and getting into my car. That is all
In suport of his defence the accused called a psychiatrist who testified that the
accused was suffering from a psychotic disease known as a delusional disorder of
the jealous type. The symptoms included auditory and visual hallucinations. The
accuseds delusion was that his wife had been unfaithful.
Held: He was acquitted on the ground of insanity under s.84.
The court ordered that he be kept in safe custody in Hospital Bahagia, Ulu Kinta
pending an order from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.