Relevance and applicability of M'Naghten's rule in Tanzania. By Johnson Yesaya.

INTRODUCTION

The M'Naghten rule is a test applied to determine whether a person accused of a crime was sane at the time of its commission and, therefore, criminally responsible for the wrongdoing.

Under the M'Naghten rule, a criminal offender is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time when criminal offence committed, the offender was so deranged that she did not know the nature or quality of her actions or, if she knew the nature and quality of her actions, she was so deranged that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong. A person who commit an offence unknowingly, under the influence of mental disease or psychotic, get exonerated by the law from an offence since there was no evil mind by an offender to commit an offence.

For the first time, M'Naghten rule came in existence in 1843. Daniel M’Naghen in 1843 tried to kill England’s Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel because he thought that minister wanted to kill him. By using gun, Daniel opened fire against peel, unfortunately the bullet hit killed peel’s private secretary and not the intended target. Daniel arrested and arraigned before court of law to answer charges of murder, Later it was testified before the court by medical experts that, during the commission of an offence the accused was psychotic and didn’t understood what he was doing. M’Naghten was found not guilty for being insanity during commission of an offence.

CRITICISM OF M’NAGHTEN’S RULE

First, M’Naghten rule makes it too easy for accused with a severe mental disorder to escape criminal responsibility. Many practitioners and scholars argued that, M’Naughten rule pave way for people with mental disorder to escape criminal liability, in some cases, mental disordered people commits offences knowingly that they are doing prohibited acts under the laws, but they still get acquitted by reason of being insanity during commission of an offence. Some scholars suggest that, the insanity defense should focus on mental illness and not a cognitive test of knowing right from wrong.

Second, some scholars have argued that, accused meeting the legal definition of insanity don't always meet the medical criteria for insanity, but are sentenced to mandatory medical care anyway. Here another problem, there is criteria set for people with mental ill to be taken to medical care, unfortunately legal criteria of insanity do not conform medical criteria for insanity. Impliedly, this discrepancy tells us that, legal insanity is not medical insanity and not all accused people who are said to be mentally ill under the law are indeed ill under medical criteria.

RELEVANCE AND APPLICABILITY OF M’NAGHTEN’S RULE IN TANZANIA

Section 13 of Penal Code  absorb M’Naghten rule, all the criteria set in applicability of the rule is contained under above section. There is no discrepancy in applicability of this rule to many jurisdictions, in Tanzania particularly, section 13 exonerate a person charged by criminal offence when the commission of an offence took place when an accused was under influence of mental disease and he/she couldn’t understand the effect of his/her actions. Section 13 (1) a,b,c and (2) provides that,

 “A person shall not be criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is through any disease affecting his mind– incapable of understanding what he is doing; incapable of appreciating that he ought not to do the act or omission; or does not have control of the act or omission. A person may be criminally responsible for an act or omission although his mind is affected by disease, if such disease does not in fact produce upon his mind one or other of the effects referred to in subsection (1) to that act or omission”.

In Republic v Maneno  An accused was set free after being testified by medical experts that, an accused was at state of being incapable to understand what he was doing and then committed an offence. Chande J, under section 219 (3) (a) of Criminal Procedure Act  ordered an accused to be transferred and kept in a mental hospital.

Section 220(1) of Criminal Procedure Act , recognize insanity and gives power to the court to order mental examination to any person who looks like being insane. This reduce wastage of time by court to proceed with a case while one party in a case is insane, Where any act or omission is charged against any person as an offence and it appears to the court during the trial of such person for that offence that such person may have been insane so as not to be responsible for his action at the time when the act was done or omission made, a court may, notwithstanding that no evidence has been adduced or given of such insanity, adjourn the proceedings and order the accused person to be detained in a mental hospital for medical examination.

REFERENCE

STATUTES

1. PENAL CODE CAP 16 R:E 2002

2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, CAP 20 R:E 2002

CASE LAWS

1. Republic v Maneno (CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 61 OF 2001) [2005] TZHC 60; (11 November 2005

ONLINE SOURCE

1.https://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/M%27Naghten+Rule

2.https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminalprocedure/the-m-naghten-rule.html 

3.https://www2.rivier.edu/journal/ROAJ2006-Spring/J41-ROLF.pdf

4.https://law.jrank.org/pages/8620/M'Naghten-Rule.html