Capacity Defences Flashcards
M’Naghten rules
Insanity
Defendant should be presumed sane unless, at the time of the offence, he can prove he was:
- Labouring under such a defect of reason…
- …caused by a disease of the mind so…
- …that he did not know either the nature and quality of the act or, if he did know it, that he didn’t know what he was doing wrong.
Who’s set of rules is the defence of insanity based around?
M’Naghten 1843
Defect of reason
Insanity
Courts states there needs to be a complete absence of the power to reason. Absentmindedness or confusion now sufficient
Clarke
Insanity
Defect of reason
The rules do not apply to those who retain the power to reason
Disease of the mind
Insanity
Can be either a mental or physical illness that effects the mind. Legal term not medical one
Kemp
Insanity
Disease of the mind
Could accept conditions that effect the D’s faculties of reason, memory and understanding
Hennessey
Insanity
Disease of the mind
Hyperglycaemic episode can count as a disease of the mind
Can insanity be caused by an external factor
No
Can a defendant who has a temporary psychotic episode when voluntarily intoxicated rely on the insanity defence?
No, the intoxicating substance is an external factor
Nature and quality of the act
Defendant does not know the physical character of the act:
Because they are in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness
Or
They are conscious but do not understand or know what they are doing due to their mental condition
Two cases that demonstrate loss of consciousness
Insanity
Kemp and Burgess
Oye
Insanity
Nature and quality of the act
The defendant must prove they did not know what they were doing was legally wrong
Which case demonstrates that if the defendant knows the nature and quality of the act and that it is legally wrong they cannot use the defence of insanity even if they are suffering from a mental illness
Windle
Sentencing for insanity
- Hospital order without time limit
- Hospital order with time limit
- Guardianship order
- Supervision and treatment order
- Absolute discharge
Problems with the defence of insanity
- Based on an old case (1843)
- Defendants suffering from physical diseases are classed as insane
- Stigma to being labelled insane
Reforms for the defence of insanity
- Suggested defendant should not be guilty on evidence of severe mental disorder or handicap
- Suggestion it should be replaced by verdict of ‘not guilty on evidence of mental disorder’
Insanity is also know as?
Insane automatism
Automatism is also know as?
Non-insane automatism
A successful plea of automatism will lead to?
Complete acquittal
What kind of factor is automatism caused by
External
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland
Automatism
“an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing”
Which case defines automatism
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland
What are the two types of automatism
Insane automatism
Non-insane automatism
Insane automatism
Where the case of automatism is a disease of the mind within the M’Naghten rules
Verdict of insane automatism
Guilty by reason of insanity
Non-insane automatism
Where the cause is an external one, when successful it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guilty
