In the Maltese legal system, an individual is not held criminally accountable if they were experiencing a state of insanity when the crime occurred. This principle stems from the understanding that a crime consists of two elements: the intent, or “mens rea”, and the physical act, or “actus reus”.

It therefore follows that if it is determined that an accused individual did not fully comprehend their actions, they cannot be legally convicted because they lacked the intentional mindset required for the crime.

To effectively argue insanity in defence of a criminal charge, it must be demonstrated that at the time of the alleged act or failure to act, the defendant was afflicted by a mental disorder which resulted in a loss of the ability to grasp the nature and significance of the act or failure, or to recognize its wrongfulness.

Additionally, it could be contended that the individual was incapable of choosing whether to commit or not commit the specific act or omission.

Legal insanity is not the same as medical insanity. Thus, if a person is certified as medically insane due to a condition by a psychiatrist, this does not necessarily mean that this same person can be deemed legally insane where criminal responsibility is concerned. A contrario sensu, a legally insane person can be deemed so without being a medically insane person. The reason for this distinction is that for the purposes of criminal law, insanity must be prevalent and influencing the accused in the exact moment that the accused committed the alleged offence.

According to Blackstone;

“It can also be seen that to a large extent, whether something is a disease of the mind depends on the consequences it produces – impairment of the faculties of reason, memory and understanding. The disease certainly need not be one primarily located in the brain if it produces the relevant consequences there. Thus arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) causing temporary loss of consciousness is a disease of the mind for these purposes even though it is of physical rather than mental origin…However not every cause of an impairment of these mental faculties is a disease of the mind.”[1]

In ‘The Republic of Malta vs. David Norbert Schembri’[2], the Court made the following comments in relation to the plea of insanity as a defence to a criminal charge:

Insanity in terms of Article 33(a) of the Criminal Code[3] is not synonymous with any medical conception of mental disorder. For insanity to be pleaded successfully to a criminal charge it must be shown that at the time of the act or omission complained of the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind in consequence of which he was deprived of the capacity to understand the nature and quality of that act or omission or to understand that it was wrong, or he was deprived of the capacity to choose whether or not to do that act of commission or omission.

The Court said:

“Biex ikun hemm l-istat ta’ ġenn li jeżenta mir-responsabbiltà kriminali jrid jirriżulta (imqar fuq bażi ta’ probabbilità, meta d-demenza tkun ġiet eċċepita mill-akkużat jew imputat u allura l-piż ikun fuqu biex jipprova l-fatt) li l-akkużat jew imputat kien qed ibati minn marda tal-moħħ li minħabba fiha, fil-mument tal-att ta’ kommissjoni jew ommissjoni, huwa kien priv

(i) jew mill-kapaċità li jifhem in-natura u l-kwalità ta’ dak l-att li qed jagħmel, jew

(ii) mill-kapaċità li jifhem li dak li qed jagħmel hu ħażin, jew

(iii) mill-kapaċità li jagħżel jekk jagħmilx jew le dak l-att.”

In this case, the accused (Schembri) suffered from impulsive behaviour at times. This was not deemed to be sufficient for a successful plea of insanity as the condition was not depriving the person from the capacities above-mentioned.

In the event that a person is found to be insane the person will not be deemed to be guilty of an offence, but he will not be discharged. Instead, as provided in Article 623 of the Criminal Code[4], the Court shall order the accused to be kept in custody at Mount Carmel Hospital there to remain in custody and detained according to the Mental Health Act[5].

For more information or assistance related to Criminal Law please contact Dr Robert Tufigno and Dr Delilah Vella.  

[1] Blackstone Criminal Practice (2008)

[2] (25/09/2008) (Court of Criminal Appeal)

[3] Chapter 9, Laws of Malta

[4] Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta

[5] Chapter 525, Laws of Malta