Extending the frontier of the Nigerian insanity defence: comparative analyses of the insanity defence in England and Scotland to offer alternative options for development.

Criminal responsibility determines whom the law will punish. A person must be criminally responsible before a court can punish them. The situation is challenging when a defendant raises insanity as a defence to criminal responsibility, because not every case of insanity relieves an accused of criminal responsibility. Courts find it challenging to determine what type of insanity relieves a person of criminal responsibility. The idea underlying the insanity defence is that, if a person is insane when committing a crime, courts should not hold them criminally responsible and should not try persons insane. This study examines the insanity defence in Nigeria's Criminal Codes (Penal and Criminal Code Act, and Criminal Procedure Code) to uncover gaps and ways of addressing them. According to its findings, the court's interpretations of Nigeria's Codes reflect out-of-date terminologies with no medical relevance. The court must determine the accused person's insanity on evidence, for which it admits medical and circumstantial evidence. This study clarifies issues surrounding evidence, urging more reliance on the medical evidence for trial and sentencing. Moreover, the narrow disposal option affects the effectiveness of the defence. The relationship between the insanity defence and the mental health system needs strengthening. Legal development is necessary for a society to keep pace with the complexity and dynamism of modern civilisation. It is in the Nigerian Government's long-term interests to consider the insanity defence as an evolving area of law and to review the regulations. Over the years, the government has not reviewed or amended the insanity defence law, which has been a part of the laws transplanted into the country. As part of this review, the substantive chapters compare the English and Scottish positions on the insanity defence to understand better how to resolve the identified shortcomings in Nigeria. This study justified the need to review and amend the insanity defence in Nigeria. It concluded that the current Nigerian insanity defence test does not adequately cover present and future needs.

Name dc:type.qualificationname

PhD

Level dc:type.qualificationlevel

Doctoral

Grantor dc:publisher.institution

Robert Gordon University

Year dc:date.issued

2022

Author dc:creator

• Eze, Kelechi Urom

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• S. Sivers and L. Sharp

• Insanity defence plea
• Criminal law
• Law and mental health
• Nigeria

Language dc:language

en

Identifier

oai:rgu-repository.worktribe.com:2071637
https://doi.org/10.48526/rgu-wt-2071637

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:rgu-repository.worktribe.com:2071637