1B.5.1 Insanity

Question 1

Special verdict when insanity is successful as a defence.

Answer 1

“Not guilty by reason of insanity”.

Question 2

Who is the burden of proving insanity on?

Answer 2

The defence

Question 3

The M’Naghten Rules

Answer 3

The rules on insanity are based on the M’Naghten Rules.

Following this case, judges looked to clarify the law in respect of insanity. This created the rules on insanity, which are used for legal cases today.

Question 4

M’Naghten (1843)

Answer 4

The defendant suffered from extreme paranoia. He thought he was being persecuted by the Tories (the then government). He tried to kill a member of the government, Sir Robert Peel, but instead killed his secretary.

Because of his mental state he was not found guilty of murder.

Question 5

What are the three elements from the M’Naghten rules?

Answer 5

• A defect of reason
• Which must be the result of a disease of the mind
• Which caused the defendant not to know the nature and quality of their act, or not to know they were doing wrong.

Question 6

Can insanity be a defence to a strict liability offence?

Answer 6

Yes - if the person does it because of a delusion as the nature and quality of the act, as seen in Loake v DPP (2017).

Question 7

Loake v DPP (2017)

Answer 7

The defendant was separated from her husband and was charged with harassment after sending a large number of text messages to him. The question was whether the defence of insanity was available for an offence that had an objective element.

The court decided that insanity is a general defence and not limited to crimes requiring mens rea, so the defence was allowed.

Question 8

Defect of reason

Answer 8

This means that the defendant’s powers of reasoning must be impaired. If the defendant is capable of reasoning but has failed to use those powers. Then this is not a defect of reason – as decided in R v Clarke (1972).

Question 9

R v Clarke (1972)

Answer 9

The defendant went into a supermarket, picked up three items and left the store without paying. She was charged with theft but claimed in her defence that she lacked the mens rea for theft because she had no recollection of putting the items into her bag, which she attributed to absent-mindedness.

Held: The defect of reason must have came from a ‘disease of the mind’. Rules of insanity do not apply to people who simply have moments of confusion or absent-mindedness.

Question 10

Disease of the mind

Answer 10

The defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind. This is a legal term, not a medical one. The disease can be a mental illness or a physical disease which affects the mind – as seen in R v Kemp (1956).

Cases:
- Sullivan - Epilepsy came within the rules of insanity.
- Hennessey - Diabetes came within the rules of insanity, because it affected the mind.
- Burgess - A sleep disorder causing sleep-walking came within the rules of insanity.

Question 11

Is insanity from an external or internal cause?

Answer 11

Insanity must be from an internal cause.

• Where the defendant is in a state where they do not know what they are doing due to an external cause, it does not amount to a disease of the mind and the defence of insanity does not apply. Instead, the defence of automatism may be available.
• Similarly, where the D voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance and this causes a temporary psychotic episode, the defendant cannot use the defence of insanity. This is because the intoxicating substance is an external factor.

Question 12

R v Burgess (1991)

Answer 12

The defendant and his girlfriend had been watching videos. They both fell asleep and, in his sleep, he attacked her. There was no evidence of any external cause for this sleep-walking and evidence was given that, in this case, it was due to an internal cause - a sleep disorder.

The judge ruled that this was evidence of insanity and the defendant was found ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’, rather than automatism.

Question 13

R v Hennessy (1989)

Answer 13

The defendant was a diabetic who had not taken his insulin for three days. He drove a stolen car, and was charged with taking a motor vehicle without consent and driving while disqualified. He had no recollection of taking or driving the car. D used the defence of insanity.

Held: D could use insanity because the diabetes was affecting his mind.

Question 14

R v Kemp (1956)

Answer 14

The defendant was suffering from a heart condition which interfered with the supply of blood to his brain and caused him to have moments of temporary loss of consciousness. During one of these moments, he attacked his wife with a hammer, causing her serious injury. D admitted that he was suffering from a ‘defect of reason’ but said that this was not due to a ‘disease of the mind’ as it was a physical illness causing the problem and not a mental illness. Held: A ‘defect of reason’ could arise due to any illness/disease which affects the mind, not just mental illness.

Question 15

R v Sullivan (1984)

Answer 15

The defendant had suffered from epilepsy since childhood. He was known to have fits. One day he had a fit and injured an 80-year-old man in the process. Held: Not guilty by reason of insanity. The source of the disease was irrelevant and it did not matter whether the impairment was permanent, transient or intermittent It must have just existed at the time at which the defendant did the act.

Question 16

Not knowing the nature and quality of the act

Answer 16

Nature and quality refer to the physical character of the act.

For a successful defence of insanity, the defendant must prove they either have impaired consciousness, or they did not know what they were doing due to a mental condition.

Where the defendant knows the nature and quality of the act, they still can use the defence of insanity if they do not know that what they did was (legally) wrong. - As seen in the case of R v Windle

Question 17

What are the two ways in which the defendant may not know the nature and quality of the act?

Answer 17

1) They are unconscious or have impaired consciousness

2) They are conscious but due to their mental condition, they do not understand or know what they are doing.

If the defendant can show that either of these states applied to them at the time of the act, then it can satisfy this part of the M’Naghten rules. A case of a defendant not knowing the nature and quality of his act was R v Oye (2013).

Question 18

R v Oye (2013)

Answer 18

The police were called to a café where the defendant was behaving oddly. He threw crockery at the police and was arrested and taken to a police station. At the police station he continued to behave oddly including drinking water out of a toilet. Hen they police moved him out of the custody suite, he became aggressive and punched a police officer, breaking her jaw. He was charged with assault occasioning ABH.

His defence was that he believed the police had demonic faces and were agents of evil spirits.

Medical evidence at the trial was that he had a psychotic episode and that he had not known what he was doing and/or that he was doing wrong. The verdict was of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Question 19

When a defendant successfully proves insanity, then the jury must return a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. The judge can then impose…

Answer 19

• A hospital order (with or without restrictions as to when the defendant may be released)
• A supervision order
• An absolute discharge

Question 20

R v Windle

Answer 20

The defendant’s wife constantly spoke of committing suicide. One day the defendant killed her by giving her 100 asprins. He gave himself up to the police and said ‘I suppose they will hang me for this’.

He was suffering from mental illness, but these words showed that he knew what he had done was legally wrong. As a result he could not use the defence of insanity and was found guilty of murder.

Question 21

R v Johnson (2007)

Answer 21

The defendant forced his way into a neighbour’s flat and stabbed him. He was charged with wounding with intent. At his trial, two psychiatrists gave evidence that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and suffering from hallucinations.

However, they both agreed that, despite this, he knew the nature and quality of his acts and that they were legally wrong. This meant that the defence of insanity was not available.