| 释义 |
精神錯亂 Being of unsound mind.
Criminal law - A defect of reason owing to a disease of the mind so as the accused did not to know the nature and quality of his act, or, if he knew this, so as not to know that what he was doing was wrong. Where, on a criminal charge, it appears that, at the time of the conduct which constitutes the crime, that the accused was labouring under insanity, he is not regarded in law as responsible for his act: R v M’Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) s 74. Where the defence to a charge of murder is insanity, the prosecution may adduce evidence that the accused was suffering from diminished responsibility and vice versa: Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) s 76A. The trial judge in a criminal case has a discretion to raise the issue of insanity or diminished responsibility of his own motion and the same is to be determined on the balance of probability: Jimmy Johnson v R [1983] HKLR 344 (CA). A mere temporary disposition or phenomenon displayed by the defendant as a result of taking drugs without cares could not be regarded as a ‘disease of the mind’ within the M’Naghten rules: HKSAR v Tang Kwok Wai [2000] 2 HKLRD 744 (CA). The defence of insanity is not established by showing merely that the accused suffers from a disease of the mind and because of that he more readily gives way to passion or is less able to control his reactions: Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed) Vol 11(1) para 32. Where the accused is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the court may make an order to admit such person to Psychiatric Centre or mental hospital, or make a guardianship order, or make a supervision and treatment order, or absolutely discharge this person: Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) s 76. See also Automatism; Diminished responsibility; Disease of the mind.
Family law - The state of being unsound mind: Bennett v Bennett [1969] 1 All ER 539, 1 WLR 430. Previously, insanity was a ground of dissolution of marriage or judicial separation. In the context of desertion, where a spouse has been certified insane or suffers from a mental disorder does not mean, that there is no reason for imputing an irrebuttable inability on the part of a spouse to form an intention to desert: Crowther v Crowther [1951] AC 723, 1 All ER 1131 (HL). An allegation that a spouse is mentally ill so as to be incapable of forming an intention to desert should be pleaded: Keeley v Keeley [1952] 2 TLR 756 (CA). A person’s mental state may be relevant to an application for custody in relation to a child as one of the matters which the court must consider in such cases is a party’s capacity to care adequately for a child. See also Access; Judicial Separation.
Tort - The condition of being of sufficiently unsound mind as to be unable to think rationally; or being deranged. In cases where liability depends on some specific state of mind, insanity may be strong evidence to show that the necessary element is lacking, and may therefore be a good defence, but not in cases where the only intent necessary to establish liability is the intent to do the physical act complained of, unless it is of such an extreme character as to deprive its victim of all power of deliberate choice: HKSAR v Tsui Chu Tin John [2001] 3 HKC 378 (CA). See also incapacity.
精神不健全。
刑事法 - 由精神病所致的理性缺陷，令被控人不知道其行為的性質及特性，或不知道其行為是錯誤的（如被控人知悉其行為的性質及特性）。凡從刑事控罪表面看來，被控人在作出構成該項控罪的行為時，正處於精神錯亂的狀態，則按照法律無須為其作出的行為負責：R v M’Naghten(1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200；《刑事訴訟程序條例》（第221章）第74條。凡被控謀殺罪的被控人以精神錯亂作為免責辯護，控方可援引證據，證明被控人在犯罪時正是減責神志失常（反之亦然）：《刑事訴訟程序條例》（第221章）第76A條。刑事案中的主審法官有酌情決定權，自行提出有關精神錯亂或減責神志失常的爭論點，並會以相對可能性的衡量標準作出裁定：Jimmy Johnson v R [1983] HKLR 344(訴法庭)。但如被告人僅因不慎使用藥物而造成短暫性的傾向或現象，不得被視為屬M’Naghten規則所指的精神病：HKSAR v Tang Kwok Wai [2000] 2 HKLRD 744(訴法庭)。凡被控人以「精神錯亂」作為免責辯護，須證明其本身患有精神病，並因其精神病以致較易屈服於其情感之下，或較難控制其反應：Halsbury Laws of England（第4版） 第11(1)冊第32段。凡被控人因精神錯亂而被判無罪，法庭可作出將被控人收納入懲教署精神病治療中心或精神病院的命令、監護令、監管和治療令或無條件釋放被控人的命令：《刑事訴訟程序條例》（第221章）第76條。另見 Automatism; Diminished responsibility; Disease of the mind。
家庭法 - 精神不健全的狀態：Bennett v Bennett [1969] 1 All ER 539，1 WLR 430。以往「精神錯亂」是解除婚約或裁判分居的一項理由。就遺棄而言，凡配偶已被證實為精神錯亂或患上精神紊亂，不等於不可推翻地認定其必定沒有遺棄的意圖：Crowther v Crowther [1951] AC 723, 1 All ER 1131（上議院）。凡指稱配偶因有精神病以致無能力組成遺棄的意圖，必須就此項指稱作訴：Keeley v Keeley [1952] 2 TLR 756（上訴法院）。就有關管養兒童的申請，由於法庭必須考慮一方向兒童提供足夠照顧的能力，因此該方的精神狀況可能相關。另見 Access; Judicial Separation。
侵權 - 精神不健全的狀況，以致不能理性地思考；或精神失常。凡法律責任取決於某特定精神狀態，「精神錯亂」可作為有力證據，證明欠缺該罪的必需元素，因此「精神錯亂」可作為良好的免責辯護；但凡確定法律責任的唯一所需意圖只是實則作出該項申索的作為，則「精神錯亂」不是有力的證據或良好的免責辯護；但如「精神錯亂」的程序屬極端性質，使病者失去所有作出審慎選擇的能力，則屬例外：HKSAR v Tsui Chu Tin John [2001] 3 HKC 378（上訴法院）。另見喪失能力。n. |