Defences (Insanity & Automatism) Flashcards
Insanity
M’Naghten Rules 1843?
“A defect of reason from a disease of the mind which means the D either does not know or does, know it, but not that it is wrong”
Automatism
Bratty V A-G For Northern Ireland?
“An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing”
Insanity
M’Naghten 1843
D intended to murder Sir Robert Peel, but killed his secretary instead.
He was acquitted on the grounds of insanity.
The case was debated in the House of Lords and questions submitted to the judges about the defence.
Although answers given by judges in this way are not technically a source of law, the House of Lords in R V Sullivan 1983 held that the rules provide a comprehensive definition of insanity
Insanity
M’Naghten 1843
The M’Naghten rules 1843
“In all cases, every man is to be presumed sane… until the contrary be proved (to satisfy the jury)…”
“It must clearly be proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the accused (had) a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not 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 was wrong”
D must establish this on the balance of probabilities
Insanity
M’Naghten 1843
The M’Naghten rules 1843
Broken down into key stages
Defect of reason
Disease of the mind
D does not know the nature and quality of the act, or does, but not that it is wrong
The M’Naghten rules 1843
Broken down into key stages
Defect of reason
(R V Clarke 1972)
D took items from a supermarket without paying.
She claimed she was suffering from absentmindedness due to depression
Held:
This was not sufficient to be insanity; D was just arguing she did not have the men’s Rea for theft
The M’Naghten rules 1843
Broken down into key stages
Defect of mind summarised
D’s powers of reasoning are impaired
Absent-mindedness of confusion, not enough (R V Clarke)
The M’Naghten Rules: Key stages
Disease of the mind
A legal concept, not medical
Disease of the mind
Any disease that results in a malfunctioning of the brain, whether a mental illness or not (R V Kemp)
The M’Naghten Rules: Key stages
Disease of the mind
R V Sullivan 1972
D was suffering from a minor epileptic seizure when he attacked the V, and he did not know what he was doing
Held:
Insanity can be “permanent, transient or intermittent”
The M’Naghten Rules: Key stages
Disease of the mind
R V Quick (1973)
D had inflicted ABH on V.
The medical evidence showed that the D was in a hypoglycaemia state at the time due to his diabetes, and so was unaware of his actions
Held:
D’s mental state was not internally caused, as he failed to eat having taken insulin, which was an external cause.
The correct please was one of automatism
The M’Naghten Rules: Key stages
Disease of the mind
R V Kemp 1957
D had irrationally and without motive attacked his wife with a hammer.
D suffered from arteriosclerosis (A slowness of arteries).
This caused a congestion of blood in his brain meaning he was not conscious at the time of the attack
Held:
This condition was a result of a disease of the mind, even though it arose from a physical cause, not a mental one
The M’Naghten Rules: Key stages
Disease of the mind
R V Kemp 1957 (Lord Denning approved)
Bratty V A-G for Northern Ireland (1963)
Lord Denning’s statement:
“any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind”
The M’Naghten Rules: Key stages
Disease of the mind
R V Hennessy 1989
D’s wife had just left him, and he was in an emotional state, with the result that he forgot to take his insulin
He was arrested having been stopped driving a stolen car.
He could not remember taking it as he was in a hyperglycaemia state.
Held:
His mental state was caused by the diabetes itself, and so was an internal cause, in contrast to R V Quick
Disease of the mind summarised
A mental disorder which has manifested itself in the violence and is prone to recur (Lord Denning)
From an internal cause - R V Hennessy
Includes physical or mental disease - R V Kemp
Need not be permanent; can be transient or intermittent - R V Sullivan
The M’Naghten rules: Key stages
D does not know the nature and quality of the act, or does, but not that it is wrong.
D does not know the nature and quality of the act,
or does, but not that it is wrong.
D does know what he is doing (Sullivan, Quick, Kemp)
“Wrong means illegal (M’Naghten)
The M’Naghten rules: Key stages
D does not know the nature and quality of the act, or does, but not that it is wrong.
R V Windle 1952
D’s wife was insane and constantly threatening suicide.
D killed her by giving her 100 aspirins.
When arrested, he said “I suppose they will hang me for this”
The medical evidence was that the D was suffering from a form of communicated insanity, but that he knew his actions were illegal
Held:
The defence of insanity was not available.
The court of appeal confirmed that “Wrong” means legally wrong - confirmed in R V Johnson (2007)
The M’Naghten rules: Key stages
D does not know the nature and quality of the act, or does, but not that it is wrong summarised
“D does not know what he is doing, or does not know it is legally wrong”
R V Windle
Insanity outcome
Jury can return a special verdict of:
Not guilty by reason of insanity
Judge can order:
D to be hospitalised
Supervision order
Absolute discharge
Automatism
What did the case law of Bratty V A-G for Northern Island (1963) define Automatism as?
What did the case law of Wilson eat al (2005) add on to automatism?
“An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing”
Where the defendants “Conscious mind is dissociated from the part of the mind which controls action”
This means the Actus Reus must be voluntarily in nature (Hill V Baxter 1958)
Automatism: Key Elements
D acts without any control by the mind;
The cause is external;
Not self-induced
Automatism: Key Elements
D acts without any control by the mind;
(Attorney General’s reference No.2 1992)
D had been driving his lorry for six of the previous twelve hours.
He drove seven hundred yards along the hard shoulder, collided with a van and killed two people.
He was initially acquitted by the jury having entered a “Trance-like” state, described by the medical expert as “Driving without awareness”
Appeal (Lord Taylor):
“For automatism to be left to the jury, there must be a total destruction of voluntary control; impaired, reduced or partial control was not enough.”
As a person “driving without awareness” Retained some control, the condition could not form the basis of automatism
Automatism: Key Elements
D acts without any control by the mind;
Broome V Perkins
“A driver going in and out of consciousness could not claim automatism as his absence of control was intermittent”
Automatism: Key Elements
D acts without any control by the mind;
(Summarised)
Must be a total destruction of voluntary control (A-G Ref No.2 and Broome V Perkins)
Automatism: Key Elements
The cause is external;
(Hill V Baxter 1958 example of an external cause)
A person undergoing a reflex spasm in response to being attacked by a swarm of bees is being affected by an external factor
Automatism: Key Elements
The cause is external;
(R V Quick 1973)
(R V Hennessy 1989)
Injection of insulin was an external factor, so automatism was the appropriate defence (R V Quick 1973)
D forgot to take Insulin, and was left with the effect of the diabetes itself. This was an internal cause, and insanity was the appropriate defence (R V Hennessy 1989)
Automatism: Key Elements
The cause is external;
(R V T 1990)
D had been raped and was suffering from PTSD.
She had been charged with Robbery and ABH
Held:
It was open to the D to raise the defence of automatism as her dissociative state was caused by the external factor of rape
Automatism: Key Elements
The cause is external;
(Summarised)
Swarm of bees (Hill V Baxter)
Injection or Insulin (R V Quick)
PTSD following rape (R V T)
Automatism: Key Elements
Not self-induced
(R V Bailey 1961)
D hit his former partner’s new boyfriend over the head with an iron bar.
D was a diabetic who had taken insulin but forgotten to eat afterwards.
Held:
Self-induced automatism could be a defence to basic intent crimes if not due to intoxication from alcohol or drugs; where D does not realise the risk associated with his conduct he can use the defence.
However, the conviction was upheld because he had not provided sufficient evidence to claim the defence.
Automatism: Key Elements
Not self-induced (Summarised into a main case)
R V Bailey
Automatism outcome
D will receive a full acquittal
Complete summary of
Automatism
Insanity
Automatism
D acts without any control by the mind;
Must be a total destruction of voluntary control (A-G’s Ref No.2 of 1992 and Broome V Perkins)
The cause is external;
Swarm of bees (Hill V Baxter)
Injection or insulin (R V Quick)
PTSD Following Rape (R V T)
Not self induced
R V Bailey
Insanity
Defect of reason
D’s powers of reasoning are impaired.
Absent mindedness or confusion not enough (R V Clarke)
Disease of the mind
Internal cause
Whether a mental illness or not (R V Kemp)
Need not be permanent; can be transient or intermittent
D does not know the nature and quality of the act, or does, but not that it is wrong
R V Windle
