Criminal law - Insanity & Automatism Flashcards
M’Naughten Rules (1843)
To succeed in pleading insanity you must show:
1. Defect of reason
2. Caused by a disease of the mind
3. So that the defendant doesn’t know the nature and quality of the act or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong
What is a defect of reason?
Inability to use reason. Not choosing not to! Therefore someone confused or absent minded is not insane though they may lack the mens rea of the crime.
Clarke
Woman was charged with theft. She transferred some items from her shopping basket to her own bag and left the shop without paying. She claimed she did not intend to steal but had done this in “a moment of absent mindedness”. Trial judge said this as defence of insanity - she withdrew the defence. On appeal the court held that she was not insane but could found not guilty as she lacked the mens rea for theft.
Disease of the mind
Legal rather than medical term. Must be a physical disease not an external factor.
Kemp
Disease of the mind can be temporary
Bratty
Psychomotor epileptic seizure can be insanity.
Sullivan
Minor epileptic fit was held to be insanity as it had an internal cause — clearly not what would be considered medically “insane.”
R v Burgess
Sleep walking can be deemed insanity
Hennessy
Diabetes can be insanity if internal
The appellant had stolen a car and was stopped by the police whilst driving it. He was taken to the police station and at first felt well but later taken to hospital because he was unwell. He was a diabetic and was required to take two insulin doses per day. He had not been taking his insulin as he was in an emotional state as his wife had just left him. The appellant had no recollection of taking the car. The appellant raised the defence of automatism, however, the trial judge ruled that the appropriate defence would be insanity. The appellant changed his plea to guilty and then appealed against his conviction.
Held: Appeal was dismissed. The trial judge was right to rule that insanity was the appropriate defence. The hyperglycaemic state was caused by the disease of diabetes itself and not an outside factor of injection of insulin.
So that the D does not know the nature and quality of his act or as to not know that what he was doing was wrong
Must prove the following:
• that he did not know what he was doing
• that he did not appreciate the consequences of his actions
• that he did not appreciate the circumstances in which he was acting
In these situations D lacks the mens rea but rather than being acquitted, get the special verdict.
R v Oye
Psychotic episodes were insanity (he thought the police had demonic forces and were agents of evil spirits)
Not knowing nature or quality of act.
Not knowing what he was doing was wrong
This suggests the MR of the crime was there but because of the insanity D did not realise it was wrong. Wrong is legally wrong rather than morally wrong (legal is easier to prove).
Windle
D strangles his insane wife then pleaded his own insanity. However, when he had given himself up to the police he said “I suppose I’ll hang for this.” This showed he knew the nature and quality of his act and that what he had done was wrong.
What is needed for automatism?
Total destruction of voluntary control, an involuntary act. This means that the D’s mind is not controlling his limbs in a purposeful manner.
AG Ref No.2 of 1992
This has to be total lack of awareness, not just a trance like state
Quick (1973)
Took insulin and had eaten very little on the day of, as a result his blood sugar levels dropped and he went hypoglycaemic. This is automatism as it was an external cause.
Self induced automatism
Was D reckless in getting into the automatic state? If D acts knowing that their conduct might bring about an automatic state e.g. alcohol? Or no taking medication, or to eating once taken insulin.
