DEFENCES TO CRIMINAL CHARGES
R v. Porter (1936) Porter had seperated from his wife. In desperation he made several unsuccessful attempts to repair the marriage, but eventually fell into a deep depression and began to show signs of a nervous breakdown. He aspirin, phenacetin, and high doses of caffeine. He travelled with his child, of whom who he had custody, from their home in Canberra to Sydney to visit his wife. She told Porter that she did not want him or their child, and this led Porter to threaten to poison himself and the child. Police later found him in his house, crying uncontrollably. He had poisoned the child with a lethal dose of Strychnine and was preparing to commit suicide. At the time of the killing, he had not slept for three nights. The jury was asked to consider whether Porter was guilty of murder or if the crime had been due to temporary insanity. The judge informed the jury that a lack of self control, passion, impulsiveness or stupidity did not constitute insanity. Insanity was instead defined as a desease or a disorder of the mind. In the case, the medial evidence of the near breakdown and deep depression were enough for the jury to acquit Porter on the grounds of insanity. |
CRIMES AGAINST SOVEREIGN
R V. Sharkey (1949) In 1949, while he was general secretary of the communist party of Australia, Sharkey stated in a newspaper interview, that if the Soviet Union invaded Australia, the workers of Australia will welcome it. He was also quoted as saying that Australian workers should use force to ensure fascists did not stop the communits from gaining power. Sharkey was charged with attempting to incite the overthrow of the government, and found guilty of sedition.Sharkey appealed the decesion to the high court, claiming he was speaking only hypothetically. The court ruled that the Crimes Act 1900 had been breached, as Sharkeys comments were seditious. |