Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law - Defence Of Insanity > Defence Of Insanity > Flashcards

Defence Of Insanity Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What is the aim of the defence of insanity?

A

To distinguish the responsible from those who do not have the ability to control their actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Why is the defence of insanity also know as?

A

Insane automatism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What kind of definition is insanity in regards to the defence of insanity?

A

It is a legal definition rather than a medial definition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What type of defence is insanity?

A

A general defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is a general defence?

A

It can be used as a defence for any crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What happens if the jury does find the defendant to be insane?

A

They return with a special verdict if ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ and the judge makes an order of either

1) hospital order
2) supervision order
3) absolute discharge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does the domestic violence crime and victims act 2004 allow?

A

The judge to make an order for the defendant if they are insane, it could be one of the 3:

1) hospital order
2) supervision order
3) absolute discharge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What act allowed a judge to place orders on a an insane defendant?

A

The domestic violence crime and victims act 2004

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What act was prior to the domestic violence crime and victims act 2004?

A

The criminal procedure (insanity and unfitness to plead) act 1991

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What was the law prior to the criminal procedure (insanity and unfitness to plead) act 1991?

A

A successful plea resulted in compulsory detention in a mental hospital

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What act amended and replaced the criminal procedure (insanity and unfitness to plead) act 1991?

A

The domestic violence crime and victims act 2004

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What offences can a judge not make an order for?

A

Murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How did the domestic violence crime and victims act 2004 limit judges discretion?

A

They cannot make a hospital or restriction order without medical evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What must the defendant prove insanity on?

A

A balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Can the prosecution raise the defence of insanity?

A

Yes, even if the defendant has not pleased insanity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How can the prosecution raise insanity?

A

By providing evidence the defendant is insane

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What laid down the rules on insanity?

A

M’Naghten (1843)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the case of M’Naghten (1843) relevant to?

A

The rules of insanity, they were established in this case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What case happened in 1843?

A

M’Naghten

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

In what year was the case of M’Naghten?

A

1843

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What were the rules laid down in M’Naghten (1843)?

A

At the time of the offence the defendant must have been suffering from:
A defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind so that the defendant did not know what they were doing it if he did know, he did not know it was wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What did the House of Lords establish in the case of M’Naghten (1843)?

A

That the general presumption that everyone is sane can be rebutted if at the time of the offence the defendant must have been suffering from:
A defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind so that the defendant did not know what they were doing it if he did know, he did not know it was wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What happened in the case of M’Naghten (1843)?

A

The defendant attempted to murder someone but killed their secretary instead

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What was the outcome of M’Naghten (1843)?

A

The court acquitted him on grounds of insanity. There was a media and public outcry and the House of Lords was asked to clarify the legal rules of the defence so devised the rules which later became known as the M’Naghten rules.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What is a defect of reason?

A

A complete loss of reasoning power, forgetfulness or failing to use reasoning powers does not suffice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What case is relevant to defect of reason?

A

R v Clarke (1972)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What case happened in 1972?

A

R v Clarke

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

In what year did the case of R v Clarke happen?

A

1972

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is the case of R v Clarke (1972) relevant to?

A

A defect of reason and that there must be a complete loss of reasoning power

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What happened in the case of R v Clarke (1972)?

A

The defendant was charged with stealing from a supermarket and claimed she had been acting absentmindedly because of her diabetes and depression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What was the outcome of R v Clarke (1972)

A

On her appeal her conviction was quashed because the judge should not have suggested insanity as she was not deprived of her reasoning powers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What type of term is ‘disease of the mind’

A

A legal term, not a medical term

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What does disease of the mind mean?

A

Malfunctioning of the mind, but this is not confined to diseases of the brain, it applies to malfunctioning of the mind which was caused by something from within the body

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What was stated in R v Kemp (1957)?

A

‘There is no distinction between disease of the mind and disease of the body affecting the mind’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What case happened in 1957?

A

R v Kemp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

In what year did the case of R v Kemp happen?

A

1957

37
Q

What is the case of R v Kemp (1957) relevant to?

A

The definition of disease of the mind

38
Q

What happened in the case of R v Kemp (1957)?

A

The defendant suffered from arteriosclerosis which caused problems with blood supply to the brain resulting in black outs. During one of these black outs be attacked his wife with a hammer

39
Q

What was the outcome of R v Kemp (1957)?

A

He was found not guilty by insanity and the definition of disease of the mind was established

40
Q

What is the assumption when it comes to insanity?

A

Everyone is presumed to be sane and to have free will

41
Q

What two judicial theories have been developed to help the court know when the defence of insanity is appropriate?

A

Continuing danger theory

Internal or external cause

42
Q

Where did the continuing danger theory originate from?

A

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963)

43
Q

What did the case of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963) do?

A

Create the continuing danger theory

44
Q

What case happened in 1963?

A

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963)

45
Q

In what year did the case of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland happen?

A

1963

46
Q

What is the continuing danger theory?

A

It works on the basis of ‘is the defendant still a danger to the public? And are they likely be he violent again?’

47
Q

What does the continuing danger theory seem to be dictated by?

A

Public policy and the need to protect the public from dangerous and violent individuals

48
Q

What happened in the case of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963)?

A

The defendant strangled a girl and claimed it happened during an epileptic seizure.

49
Q

What was the outcome of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963)?

A

The trial judge directed the jury towards an insanity plea. The defendant appealed saying he should’ve been allowed automatism but the House of Lords agreed with the trial judge.

50
Q

In the case of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963) why did the trial judge direct the jury towards an insanity plea…

A

Because the defendant had no control when an epileptic seizure would happen and he was violent during them, had he been found guilty of insanity then a hospital order could have been placed so he was no longer a threat to society

51
Q

What case confirmed the ruling of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963)?

A

R v Sullivan (1984)

52
Q

What did the case of R v Sullivan (1984) do?

A

Confirm the ruling of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963)

53
Q

How are the cases of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963) and R v Sullivan (1984) similar?

A

The defendants both acted whilst having an epileptic seizure

54
Q

Why is epilepsy a disease of the mind?

A

Because during a seizure mental faux lorises foils be impaired to the extent of cussing a defect of the mind. It was irrelevant or the defect of reason was temporary or permanent

55
Q

What did Lord Denning help to define what mental disorders were considered to be a disease of the mind?

A

‘Any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind’

56
Q

What is the internal/external factor theory?

A

That if the disease of the mind was caused by an external source e.g wrongful use of medication then the correct defence would be automatism. If it was caused by an internal factor the insanity is the correct plea.

57
Q

What case created the internal/external factor theory?

A

R v Quick (1973)

58
Q

Why did the case of R v Quick (1973) do?

A

The court of appeal made the distinction between internal and external factors and which was the appropriate offence for each.

59
Q

What year was the case of R v Quick?

A

1973

60
Q

What case happened in 1973?

A

R v Quick

61
Q

What happened in the case of R v Quick (1973)?

A

The defendant had a HYPOglycaemic attack brought in from not eating after he took his insulin, he attacked a patient where he worked and caused GBH but said he could not remember anything.

62
Q

What was the outcome of R v Quick (1973)?

A

The judge was incorrect in guiding the jury towards insanity rather than automatism because it was the insulin (and external factor) rather than the diabetes which caused the attack so his conviction was quashed.

63
Q

Why a type of attack did the defendant have in R v Quick (1973)? (Correct spelling required)

A

HYPOglycaemic

64
Q

What case happened in 1989?

A

R v Hennessy

65
Q

In what year did the case of R v Hennessy happen?

A

1989

66
Q

What happened in the case of R v Hennessy (1989)?

A

The defendant was a diabetic and was charged with taking a vehicle whilst disqualified. He said at the time he had not taken his insulin for 3 days due to stress and depression and was suffering from HYPERglycaemia.

67
Q

What was the outcome of R v Hennessy (1989)?

A

The judge ruled the proper defence to be insanity. Not taking insulin meant the cause of the defendants automatic state was the diabetes, an internal cause.

68
Q

What does be defence/prosecution need to prove once the disease of mind has been established?

A

That the disease of the mind meant he lacked the knowledge as to the ‘nature and quality of the act, or if he did know he did not know what he was doing was wrong’

69
Q

What case is relevant to nature and quality of the act?

A

Codere (1916)

70
Q

What case happened in 1916?

A

Codere

71
Q

In what year did the case of Codere happen?

A

1916

72
Q

What is the case of Codere (1916) relevant to?

A

Helping the define the nature and quality of the act

73
Q

What happened in the case of Codere (1916)?

A

It helped define what the nature and quality of the act meant and held it meant physical rather than moral nature of the act e.g where a defendant cuts his wife’s belay thinking its a loaf of bread

74
Q

What type of attack did the defendant suffer from in the case of R v Hennessy?

A

A HYPERglycaemia attack

75
Q

What is meant by ‘he did not know what he was doing was wrong?’

A

It means if he legally didn’t know what he was doing was wrong, not morally

76
Q

What case is relevant to ‘if he did he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong’?

A

R v Windle (1952)

77
Q

What case happened in 1952?

A

R v Windle

78
Q

In what year was the case of R v Windle?

A

1952

79
Q

What happened in the car of R v Windle (1952)?

A

The defender killed his suicidal wife by making her overdose and said ‘I suppose they will hang me for this’

80
Q

What was the outcome of R v Windle (1952)?

A

It was clear the defendant knew poisoning his wife was legally wrong so the court upheld his murder conviction and rejected his insanity plea despite their being evidence of his disease of the mind.

81
Q

Briefly, what are the evaluation points?

A 
Outdated 
Legal not medical definition 
Juries decide
Unfair stigma 
Harsh rulings
82
Q

Explain the definition of insanity is outdated evaluation point…

A

The definition of insanity is outdated as it does not consider medical and psychiatric progress since 1843. 1953 Royal Commission reported doctors thought it was obsolete and misleading. The law is out of step with modern medicine

83
Q

Explain the legal definition not medical definition evaluation point…

A

When the M’Naghten definition of insanity was created in the Victorian times insanity was associated with failure of reasoning powers. Now medical science realises it also includes emotions and personality. The current definition is meaningless to modern psychiatry.

84
Q

Explain the all or nothing evaluation point…

A

A defendant is either sane or insane and that is harsh and potentially unjust

85
Q

Explain the juries evaluation point..

A

It is down to the jury to decide if the defendant was insane at the time the offence was committed. This would be difficult for a doctor, let alone a medically not qualified juror

86
Q

Explain the unfair stigma evaluation point…

A

Under this law it deems epileptics to be classed as insane, but medically they are not seen as insane. MIND has criticised the law for making this link and warns it encourages a stigma to emerge.

87
Q

Explain the internal/external factor theory being harsh…

A

It can lead to harsh and absurd rulings, for an example R v Quick and R v Hennessy

88
Q

Why has MIND criticised the defence of insanity?

A

Because it creates a link between epileptics and insanity which is not medically correct and may give rise to a stigma

89
Q

What did the Royal Commission find in 1953?

A

Doctors thought the definition of insanity was obsolete and misleading

A2 Law - Defence Of Insanity (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions