Alcohol and drugs used as a defence

THE public outcry over the release of Mark Donovan Ramdass, who faced charges of murder for killing his girlfriend, Ashika Singh, has raised questions about criminal capacity and the role of alcohol.

Last week Ramdass was acquitted of charges of murder, as the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had criminal capacity at the time of the incident. Ramdass admitted the killing but said he did not remember the events because of the amount of alcohol and drugs consumed.

People took to social media to express their outrage over the acquittal of Ramdass.

Singh’s family spokesman, Naresh Rampersad, said they would be appealing against the ruling.

Ramdass’s lawyer advocate Mondli Qulo said his client was not granting interviews.

Forensic psychiatrist Professor Mo Nagdee, of Fort England Hospital in Grahamstown, said every case was different, with its own complications.

“Every person is assumed to have criminal capacity unless proved to the contrary. If a person raises lack of criminal capacity as a defence, then the onus lies on that person and the legal team to prove the lack of criminal capacity.

“There are several factors to consider when applying this as a defence, and there would need to be a panel of experts of at least two psychiatrists, who will conduct a psycholegal evaluation and provide their expert opinion. Amnesia is not a defence in itself, nor a diagnosis. It may suggest the presence of an underlying mental disorder, as an example, and may lead to questions on whether the person is fit to stand trial or criminally responsible.

“There are many considerations when invoking mental illness as a defence,” he said.

The use of alcohol or other substances, he said, can be seen in several contexts, leading to so-called voluntary or involuntary intoxication, and in some cases substances may be the trigger for a pathological response.

It was possible a person could consume so much alcohol it could cause memory loss, but this did not necessarily negate criminal capacity.

Suhayfa Bhamjee, senior lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal School of Law, said the intoxication of a person when committing a crime gave rise to much debate.

“There (is) … the unyielding approach which holds that even if you are intoxicated when committing a crime, you must be held accountable… and a lenient approach where although the person has performed some “wrongful act” they may escape criminal liability because intoxication results in a loss of capacity.”