DEFENCES - INSANITY

Question 1

Define Insanity. (1)

Answer 1

‘The defendant must be labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he or she was doing, or if he or she did know it, that he or she did not know he or she was doing what was wrong’

Question 2

what is the verdict of a successful defence of insanity? (1)

Answer 2

not guilty by reason of insanity

Question 3

what case are the rules of insanity based on? (1)

Answer 3

M’Naghten (1843)

Question 4

what are the rules of insanity? (2)

Answer 4

• ‘in all cases every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a significant degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes’
• the defendant must be ‘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, he did not know he was doing what was wrong’

Question 5

what elements need to be proved for insanity to apply? (3)

Answer 5

-a defect of reason
-which must be the result of a disease of the mind
-which caused the defendant not to know the nature and quality of his or her act, or not to know he or she was doing wrong

Question 6

what occurred in the case of M’Naghten and when was it? (2)

Answer 6

Defendant had paranoia and tried to kill a government official but ended up killing his secretary, he was found not guilty and ordered to spend time in a mental institute. Public scrutiny caused the house of lords to answer the case. (1843)

Question 7

why is insanity not considered a defence to an offence of strict liability? (1)

Answer 7

it was held that insanity was not a defence to an offence of strict liability as no mental element is required to be proved.

Question 8

what case proved that insanity cannot be used as a defence to a strict liability crime? (1)

Answer 8

DPP v H (1997)

Question 9

what occurred in the case of DPP v H and when was it? (2)

Answer 9

the defendant was charged with driving in excess of alcohol. (1997)

Question 10

what is meant by defect of reason? (1)

Answer 10

this means that the defendants power of reasoning must be impaired , if the defendant is capable of reasoning but has failed to use those powers, then there is not a defect of reason.

Question 11

in what case was the meaning of defect of reason established? (1)