Consent Evaluation

Question 1

INSANITY

Concerns

Answer 1

Main concerns- not clear when defence is available
Wrong to label people as insane esp ppl w/ epilepsy
Insanity & automatism overlaps and incoherent
Problems w/burden of proof and HR

Question 2

Reforms of insanity

Answer 2

New definition
What a successful plea should result in
Who should decide whether def is insane
Changing burden of proof

Question 3

OUT OF DATE

Answer 3

Mnaughten rule 1843
Less was known
Remained unchanged 
Criticised by medical professionals 
Reform- modern definition - word insanity replaced with RMC

Question 4

LEGAL NOT MEDICAL DEFINITION

Answer 4

Covers conditions that modern medicine wouldn’t consider a DOM e.g epilepsy (Sullivan) hardening of arteries (kemp) diabetes (Hennessy).
Reasoning- protecting public from people who’s condition may result in violence (bratty)
Reform- judge should have more discretion in the treatment. Could order they are sent to hospital or have support in community

Question 5

SOCIAL STIGMA

Answer 5

Hennessy labelled as insane being diabetic
Not clinically insane
Link to out of date
Reform- change definition to avoid SS

Question 6

OVERLAPS WITH AUTOMATISM

Answer 6

lead to unfair and inconsistent decisions
E.g Hennessy (failed to take insulin, internal factor, insanity) and Quick (failed to eat after insulin, external factor, automatism)

Question 7

BURDEN OF PROOF

Answer 7

Normal cases- Prosecution to disprove any defence raised
Insanity- burden lies with def to prove defence on balance of probs w/ evidence of 2 med experts
Goes against HR - right to a fair trial
Reform- should’ve changed to normal defence

Question 8

JURY TO DEICIDE

Answer 8

up to jury to decide def NGBRI e.g. (Yorkshire ripper)

Reform- should be decided by judge

Question 9

CONSENT

Answer 9

-Common law defence
-Available for non fatals
-AG Ref (No.6 of 1980)
CA stated- public interest prevented consent to be raised as defence for most fist fights &death

Question 10

WHEN CONSENT CAN BE RAISED

Answer 10

• sport (not beyond rules)
• (barnes) rugby tackle injury- sufficiently grave to be available
• needed by society as socially beneficial

Question 11

RHP

Answer 11

-Controversial
-(jones) birthday bumps=broken arm - conviction quashed as genuine mistake they consented
-(aitken) set fire to pilot- genuine mistake
LC- want defence removed

Question 12

HARSH

Answer 12

• considered as harsh
• (c&so act 2003) girl under 13 can’t consent to sex
• G - genuine belief irrelevant and strict liability