Principle Archive

Insanity is primarily a question of fact to be determined by the trial court, taking into consideration all admissible evidence, including medical evidence, the nature of…

The burden on the accused to prove insanity is on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence, the same as in civil cases.

Every person is presumed to be of sound mind until the contrary is proved; the accused bears the burden of rebutting this presumption.

In insanity cases, the judge must consider the behaviour of the accused at the time of the killing as well as after the killing.

Mere absence of any evidence of motive for a crime is not sufficient ground upon which to infer insanity.

To establish insanity, the defence must show: (1) mental disease or natural mental infirmity; and (2) that it deprived the accused of capacity to understand his…

Where an accused pleads insanity, the onus is on him to produce evidence of insanity.

Parties who voluntarily opt out of trial despite adequate notice of the hearing date cannot complain of denial of the right to cross-examine; there can be…

There is no better notice of the case the respondent intended to make at trial than his statement of claim; service of the writ and statement…

A Court of Appeal ought to be very slow indeed to interfere with the discretion of a trial Judge, especially when exercised to facilitate the hearing…

Where concurrent findings of the two courts are unimpeachable and no special circumstances have been shown that the findings are impeachable, the Supreme Court will not…

When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity…