The defence of insanity brought about by voluntary intoxication : an unjust exemption from liability?

Abstract

The rules on criminal liability require one to possess both the actus reus and the mens rea at the time of the crime. The actus reus is the physical act of committing the crime, whereas the mens rea refers to the mental act of understanding and volition with regards to the crime. When the mens rea is not present in the mind of the offender, due to insanity, they cannot be found guilty of the crime in question. This is also the case where such insanity has arisen due to voluntary and self-induced intoxication on the part of the accused. It does not matter how the state of insanity has come about, so long as it is proven to have been present at the time of commission of the crime. Once this is proven, no mens rea could possibly have been present in the mind of the accused and they therefore cannot be found guilty. They will, however, be detained in Mount Carmel in terms of the Mental Health Act, Chapter 525 of the Laws of Malta. Most jurisdictions accept the defence of insanity induced by intoxication where it is proven to have been permanent in nature. However, Maltese law also includes a possible defence for when the insanity was temporary in nature. Is this a justified defence? Issues may arise where the insanity contracted by voluntary intoxication was temporary in nature and is no longer present at the time of the trial. Although there has been no case law on this situation as of yet. In such a situation where the accused is no longer insane, would it be just to still detain them in Mount Carmel, as the current position of the law requires? This work will aim to answer these questions as well as propose possible solutions.