Chapter 11: General Defences: Automatism

Question 1

What are general defences?

Answer 1

• General defences are defences which can be raised to most crimes including for the offence of murder
• Unlike characteristics of specific defences. General defences operate either to negate/negative an element of a crime in which the case will result in no crime,or to operate as a defence to a fully constituted crime
• It is prima facie, in that the defence being allowed, are in the hands of the judge discretion (whether to apply it or not)
• Although if the general defence negates one of the elements of a crime, discretion is not needed

Question 2

What is the point/reason of raising defence of insanity?

Answer 2

It completely negates mens rea, as the defendant lacked the mental responsibility to understand their own actions

Question 3

Why does insanity have the ability to negative mens rea?

Answer 3

It is an object under criminal law to punish those that are responsible for their actions

• But it this objective cannot be fulfilled by punishing a defendant who clearly lacks the mental responsibility for their actions
• No purpose is served in deterring and blaming someone who has not acted with full mental volition
• These defences are viewed as negating mens rea. That the defendant claims that he lacked the mental capacity, because of his disorder, to understand either the nature of his actions or their consequences

Question 4

When is the time to plead the defence of insanity?

Answer 4

Before trial (at the arraignment)

• The accused is asserting incapacity to understanding the proceedings or the required plea or instruct his counsel

During the trial

• Accused assets that he did not have the mental responsibility at the time of the act

After trial (before sentencing)

• Accused is asserting that he should not be imprisoned because of his insanity

Question 5

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

Answer 5

1. Came into effect on 1 January 1992
2. Improved the position of the defendant whose fitness to plead is questioned at outset of the proceedings, and to increase the range of disposition options open to the court following the special verdict ‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’.
3. However this act doesn’t change the definition to insanity in M’Naghten Rules [1843]

Question 6

What is the fitness to plead?

Answer 6

Before, a defendant can be found to be unfit to plead before the issue of liability is investigated. This can result in a defendant being detained in a secure hospital simply on the basis of his or her unfitness to plead.

The Criminal Procedure Act 1991 is designed to improve the situation of such defendants by requiring a court which has found a defendant unfit to plead, to continue with trial of the facts to the extent of ascertaining whether or not the defendant committed the actus reus of the offence alleged.

It developed

1. disposal
2. burden of proof

Question 7

What is disposal

Answer 7

• Under 1991 Act, if such a defendant is found not to have committed the actus reus, he must be acquitted
• the act increased the range of disposal options available to the courts provided the offence is not one that attracts a mandatory penalty
  Supervision and treatment order
  Guardianship order
  Order the defendant’s admission to hospital for a limited or unlimited period

Disposal options

1. Supervision and treatment order
2. Guardianship order
3. Order the defendant’s admission to hospital for a limited or unlimited period
4. Discharge the defendant completely

created more methods of treating the decions

Question 8

Who bears the burden of proof? What is the burden of proof?

Answer 8

BOP lies on the defendant to satisfy on the balance of probabilities

Question 9

What type of defence is the defence of insanity?

Answer 9

A general defence - Can apply as a defence for all crimes of negligence and crimes of strict liability (Hennessy [1898] 2 All ER 9 CA)

Question 10

What is the substance of law that regards insanity

Answer 10

1. Definition laid down in M’Naghten’s Rules in 1843. Reaffirmed in the case of R v Sullivan (1983)
2. Presumption - innocence, sanity, Possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for their crimes until the contrary is proven
3. Requirements - Medical case must be adduced (R v Dickie) and
   the 3 elements under M’Naghten Rules must be satisfied

Question 11

What are the 3 elements of insanity in M’Naghten

Important

Answer 11

‘It must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason,from disease of the mind, as not to 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 wrong.’

1. Defect of reason
2. From disease of the mind
3. Defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act; OR he knew he did it, but he did not know he was doing what was wrong about it

Question 12

What is the disease of the mind?

Answer 12

A defect from some internal degenerative factor which has an organic cause

• Devlin J - ‘… The distinction between the two categories is irrelevant for the purpose of the law, which is not concerned with the origin of the disease or the cause of it but simply with the mental condition which has brought about the act…’
• A disease of the mind is not a disease of the brain. It is also immaterial whether the disease was permanent, temporary, curable, or incurable

Question 13

What is the case that supports the disease of the mind

Answer 13

R v Sullivan

• Facts - S attacked an elderly man while suffering from an epileptic seizure
• Held - Lord Diplock stated that obiter that a disease of the mind (internal) might not cover ‘temporary impairments (of the mental faculties) resulting from an external physical factor such as a blow to the head…or the (therapeutic) administration of an anaesthetic

Question 14

What is the case that reaffirms R v Sullivan

proves Sullivan right

Answer 14

R v Quick v Paddison

1. Hypoglycaemia, malfunction of the mind was an external factor, which wasn’t the disease of the mind, but automatism
2. Therefore, the general rule is that in situations where the accused’s mind was affected by certain internal factors, the defence of insanity is available to him but not if the malfunctioning of his mind is caused by external factor

Hyperglycaemia is insanity, but hypogylcaemia is automatism

Question 15

What is defect of reason?

Answer 15

1. It must negate the mental ability (mens rea), inability to reason or understand or memory being impared

Question 16

What is the case that supports defect of reason

Answer 16

R v Kemp [1956]

• Agreed with Devlin J - “It is not labouring under a disease of the mind which produces the defect of reasoning but the paramount thing that has to be looked for is the defect of reason.”
• Defect of reason by itself could make an irrational act sufficient even though they were caused by daftness or carelessness

Question 17

What is the difference between defect of reason and absent-mindedness

Answer 17

Defect of reason

1. Ability to make rational choices is impaired due to internal factor
2. i.e. When the mind can’t reason/make choices

Absent-mindedness
1. Merely a momentary lapse in concentration (not a good enough reason that fully negates mens rea)

Question 18

What is the case for absent-mindedness

Answer 18

R v Clarke (1972) 1 All ER 219

• Facts - Defendant suffered from depression, but stole items from a supermarket absent-mindedly because of her depression
• Held - COA held that she was not labouring under a defect of reason as she had merely had a momentary lapse in concentration

Question 19

What are the 2 misperceptions on the part of the defendant

Answer 19

1. Not knowing the nature and the quality of his act;
2. Or did not know what he was doing was wrong (legally wrong)

Question 20

What case suports ‘Not knowing the nature and the quality of his act’

Answer 20

R v Codere [1916]

• A person is legally sane if they know what they are doing and the physical implications of what they are doing
• Facts - Defendant was suffering from insane delusions
• Held - Accused did not appreciate the nature and quality of the act due to an insane delusion which made him not guilty by reason of insanity

Question 21

What is the implication of the wrong, that the ‘Defendant did not know what he was doing was wrong’

Answer 21

The defendant misperception/not knowing what he did was legally wrong

Question 22

What case supports ‘defendant did not know what he was doing was wrong’

Answer 22

R v Windle [1952]

Facts

1. Defendant had some sort of homicidal tendencies due to the suicidal obsession of his wife to be transferred to him.
2. He gave the wife 100 aspirin tablets with fatal results and later admitted he knew what he was doing and that it was illegal. He said “I suppose they will hang me for this?”

Held

1. COA affirmed that there is no insanity here as he knew that his act is wrong, legally wrong. It is not to be said to be wrong according to the Defendant’s own moral standard or the standard of others