LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Defences — Insanity — Presumption of Sanity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Every person is presumed to be of sound mind until the contrary is proved; the accused bears the burden of rebutting this presumption.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Ani v. State (2002) NLC-3152001(SC) at p. 10; Paras D–E.
"Section 27 of the Criminal Code Law of the now defunct Bendel State of Nigeria applicable to Edo State provides that every person is presumed to be of sound mind, and to have been of sound mind at any time which comes in question until the contrary is proved. Accordingly, there is no duty on the prosecution in criminal cases to establish what the law presumes in its favour, that is to say, the sanity of an accused person. On the contrary, where an accused person pleads insanity or insane delusion as a defence to a criminal prosecution, there is a duty and the onus is on him to rebut this primary presumption of law as to his sanity and to establish his insanity or insane delusion as the case may be within the context of section 28 of the criminal code."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The law presumes sanity. The prosecution need not prove sanity. The accused bears the burden of rebutting the presumption. The principle is statutory under the Criminal Code. The accused must prove insanity on the balance of probabilities. The rule applies to all criminal trials. The presumption operates at all times relevant to the case. The accused cannot rely on the prosecution’s failure to prove sanity. The burden is evidential and persuasive. The principle ensures that the defence of insanity is not raised without evidence. The court will not assume insanity from the circumstances alone.
