(2) The question whether the person was suffering from a mental impairment is one of fact.
(3) A person is presumed not to have been suffering from such a mental impairment. The presumption is only displaced if it is proved on the balance of probabilities (by the prosecution or the defence) that the person was suffering from such a mental impairment.
(4) The prosecution can only rely on this section if the court gives leave.
(5) The tribunal of fact must return a special verdict that a person is not guilty of an offence because of mental impairment if and only if it is satisfied that the person is not criminally responsible for the offence only because of a mental impairment.
(6) A person cannot rely on a mental impairment to deny voluntariness or the existence of a fault element but may rely on this section to deny criminal responsibility.
(7) If the tribunal of fact is satisfied that a person carried out conduct as a result of a delusion caused by a mental impairment, the delusion cannot otherwise be relied on as a defence.
(8) In this Code:
mental impairment includes senility, intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage and severe personality disorder.
(9) The reference in subsection (8) to mental illness is a reference to an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of long or short duration and whether permanent or temporary, but does not include a condition that results from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary external stimuli. However, such a condition may be evidence of a mental illness if it involves some abnormality and is prone to recur.
Division 8
Intoxication
8.1 Definition — self-induced intoxication
For the purposes of this Division, intoxication is self-induced unless it came about:
(a) involuntarily; or
(b) as a result of fraud, sudden or extraordinary emergency, accident, reasonable mistake, duress or force.
8.2 Intoxication (offences involving basic intent)
(1) Evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be considered in determining whether a fault element of basic intent existed.
(2) A fault element of basic intent is a fault element of intention for a physical element that consists only of conduct.
Note: A fault element of intention with respect to a circumstance or with respect to a result is not a fault element of basic intent.
(3) This section does not prevent evidence of self-induced intoxication being taken into consideration in determining whether conduct was accidental.
(4) This section does not prevent evidence of self-induced intoxication being taken into consideration in determining whether a person had a mistaken belief about facts if the person had considered whether or not the facts existed.
(5) A person may be regarded as having considered whether or not facts existed if:
(a) he or she had considered, on a previous occasion, whether those facts existed in circumstances surrounding that occasion; and
(b) he or she honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances surrounding the present occasion were the same, or substantially the same, as those surrounding the previous occasion.
8.3 Intoxication (negligence as fault element)
(1) If negligence is a fault element for a particular physical element of an offence, in determining whether that fault element existed in relation to a person who is intoxicated, regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person who is not intoxicated.
(2) However, if intoxication is not self-induced, regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person intoxicated to the same extent as the person concerned.
8.4 Intoxication (relevance to defences)
(1) If any part of a defence is based on actual knowledge or belief, evidence of intoxication may be considered in determining whether that knowledge or belief existed.
(2) If any part of a defence is based on reasonable belief, in determining whether that reasonable belief existed, regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person who is not intoxicated.
(3) If a person’s intoxication is not self-induced, in determining whether any part of a defence based on reasonable belief exists, regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person intoxicated to the same extent as the person concerned.
(4) If, in relation to an offence:
(a) each physical element has a fault element of basic intent; and
(b) any part of a defence is based on actual knowledge or belief;
evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be considered in determining whether that knowledge or belief existed.
(5) A fault element of basic intent is a fault element of intention for a physical element that consists only of conduct.
Note: A fault element of intention with respect to a circumstance or with respect to a result is not a fault element of basic intent.
8.5 Involuntary intoxication
A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person’s conduct constituting the offence was as a result of intoxication that was not self-induced.
Division 9
Circumstances involving mistake or ignorance
9.1 Mistake or ignorance of fact (fault elements other than negligence)
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is a fault element other than negligence if:
(a) at the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person is under a mistaken belief about, or is ignorant of, facts; and
(b) the existence of that mistaken belief or ignorance negates any fault element applying to that physical element.
(2) In determining whether a person was under a mistaken belief about, or was ignorant of, facts, the tribunal of fact may consider whether the mistaken belief or ignorance was reasonable in the circumstances.
9.2 Mistake of fact (strict liability)
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if:
(a) at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and is under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts; and
(b) had those facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.
(2) A person may be regarded as having considered whether or not facts existed if:
(a) he or she had considered, on a previous occasion, whether those facts existed in the circumstances surrounding that occasion; and
(b) he or she honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances surrounding the present occasion were the same, or substantially the same, as those surrounding the previous occasion.
Note: Section 6.2 prevents this section applying in situations of absolute liability.
9.3 Mistake or ignorance of statute law
(1) A person can be criminally