CD: Insanity Flashcards
Insanity (insane automatism)
Contained in the M’Naughten Rules of 1843 and defined as:
‘The D must prove that at the time of the offence he was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong’
Insanity defence could be an alternative to diminished responsibility in cases of murder - look at disease of mind that impairs ability to understand nature of conduct and legally wrong
Procedural rules
Developed through common law and some statute.
Procedural rules:
- D is presumed sane
- The prosecution, defence or judge can raise the issue of insanity
- Burden of proof is on the D to prove on a balance of probabilities
- The judge decides whether D is fit to plead
M’Naghten rules
The D must satisfy each part of M’Naghten rules:
(Components of the definition)
1) ‘Labouring under such a defect of reason’ (mens rea)
- Being deprived of the power to reason, not just failing to use it - doesn’t include absentmindedness or confusion
2) ‘Arising from a disease of the mind’ (Actus reus)
- A legal term not a medical term, but must be supported by medical evidence
- Broad definition covering organic or functional, permanent or transient and intermittent issues
- Must be caused by an internal factor arising at the time of the act
3) ‘Did not know the nature and quality of the act’ (Actus reus)
- Means the physical nature and consequences, not the moral quality of the act
- May be due to a state of unconsciousness or impaired unconsciousness, or lack of understanding or awareness due to mental condition while conscious
4) ‘Or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong’ (mens rea)
- Where the disease of the mind prevents the D from understanding the nature of the act committed or that it was legally wrong (doesn’t mean morally wrong)
- Defence will fail if D did understand
Consequences of insanity verdict
If a D is found to have been insane (defence is successful), the jury should return the special verdict ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ to the offences committed, which amounts to an acquittal.
For all offences other than murder, s5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (as amended by the 2004 Act) sets out 3 disposal options:
1) hospital order
2) supervision order
3) absolute discharge
Reform for insanity defence
The Law Commission published a discussion paper, ‘Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism’ in 2013, outlining their reform proposals:
- to term a person with a disability (eg diabetes, epilepsy), ‘insane’ seems outdated and arbitrary
- there’s a mismatch between modern psychiatry and the legal definition
- the decisions in Quick and Hennessy are described as ‘odd’
- the internal/external requirement made the potential ‘scope of the defence… surprisingly wide’
- sleepwalking cases led to inconsistency, with some D’s given the ‘special verdict’ while others were acquitted
R v M’Naghten
Definition
Judges formulated the test for insanity - M’Naghten rules
R v Clarke
‘Defect of reason’
D is required to be deprived of the powers of reasoning
R v Kemp
‘Disease of the mind’
The defence is concerned with the mind and not the brain
R v Quick
‘Disease of the mind’
The disease of the mind must originate from an internal source. This was external: the insulin
R v Hennessy
‘Disease of the mind’
The disease of the mind must originate from an internal source. This was internal: diabetes
R v Burgess
‘Disease of the mind’
Sleepwalking is internal and therefore insanity
R v Coley
Definition
Due to the external factor (cannabis), it was not insanity and a case of voluntary intoxication
Loake v DPP
Availability of defence
Insanity is available for anyone who possesses the mens rea of the offence committed and satisifes the M’Naghten rules
Insanity plan
Contained in M’Naghten rules of 1843 and defined as:
‘The D must prove that at the time of the offence he was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong’ - R v M’Naghten, R v Coley
(Insanity defence could be an alternative to diminished responsibility in cases of murder - look at disease of mind that impairs ability to understand nature of conduct and legally wrong for insanity)
Procedural rules:
(Developed through common law and some statute)
- D is presumed sane
- the prosecution, defence or judge can raise the issue of insanity
- burden of proof is on the D to prove a balance of probabilities
- the judge decides if D is fit to plead
Apply…
M’Naghten rules:
D must satisfy each component
1) ‘Labouring under such a defect of reason’ (MR)
- deprived of power to reason, not just failing to use it (doesn’t include absentmindedness or confusion) - R v Clarke
2) ‘Arising from a disease of the mind (AR)
- a legal term not medical term, but must be supported by medical evidence - R v Kemp
- broad definition covering organic or functional, permanent or transient and intermittent issue
- must be caused by an internal factor arising at time of the act - R v Quick, R v Hennessy, R v Burgess
3) ‘Did not know the nature and quality of the act’ (AR)
- means physical nature and consequences, not moral quality of the act
- may be due to state of unconsciousness/impaired consciousness, or lack of understanding or awareness due to mental condition while conscious
4) ‘Or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong’ (MR)
- where the disease of the mind prevents the D from understanding the nature of the act committed or that it was legally wrong (doesn’t mean morally wrong) - R v Windle, R v Johnson
- defence will fail if D did understand
Apply…..
Consequences of insanity verdict:
If a D is found to have been insane (defence is successful), the jury should return the special verdict ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ to the offences committed, which amounts to an acquittal.
For all offences other than murder, s5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (as amended by the 2004 Act) sets out 3 disposal options:
1) hospital order
2) supervision order
3) absolute discharge
Apply…
Reform for insanity verdict:
The Law Commission published a discussion paper, ‘Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism’ in 2013, outlining their reform proposals:
- to term a person with a disability (eg diabetes, epilepsy), ‘insane’ seems outdated and arbitrary
- there’s a mismatch between modern psychiatry and the legal definition
- the decisions in Quick and Hennessy are described as ‘odd’
- the internal/external requirement made the potential ‘scope of the defence… surprisingly wide’
- sleepwalking cases led to inconsistency, with some D’s given the ‘special verdict’ while others were acquitted
Apply……
Conclusion - if the D possesses the mens rea for the offence committed and satisfied the M’Naghten rules, the defence of insanity is available to them - Loake v DPP
R v Windle
‘He did not know what he was doing was wrong’
It did not matter that D thought his actions were not morally wrong
R v Johnson
‘He did not know what he was doing was wrong’
Insanity isn’t available where D knew what he was doing was contrary to law, even where he believes his actions are morally justified
