General defence of Insanity Flashcards
Which set of rules governs insanity
M’Naghten Rules
How did the HL explain the rules regarding insanity
Everyone is presumed to be sane until proved otherwise.
Who must prove the defence
D on the balance of probabilities
What are the three elements of the M’Naghten Rules
D must show;
1) Has a disease of the mind
2) Has a defect of reason as a result of the disease
3) either did not know the nature and quality of the act or as a result he did not know that what he was doing was wrong
How is a disease of the mind interpreted/ what does it mean
widely, any disease which affects the mind
What is mind interpreted as
Matter concerning reasoning, memory and understanding
Is there a distinction between disease of mind and body
No, similar there is no distinction between metal and physical illness
What was decided in R V Kemp
D suffered from hardening of the arteries which caused temporary unconsciousness
This had affected his mind therefore it could be classed as a disease of the mind.
Epilepsy is not classed as instant in medical terms but it is in legal terms case
R V Sullivan
R V sullivan case facts
Epileptic charged with GBH, medical evidence showed he was not aware of what he was doing.
D wanted to use non-insane but Judge decided because was an internal factor the jury could consider insanity
D changed he plea to guilty and was convicted, appealed but HL upheld conviction that epilepsy was a disease of the mind because D’s mental faculties where impaired
Legal principles from R V sullivan
1) Epilepsy is a disease of the mind because D’s mental faculties where impaired
2) The disease does not need to be permanent as long as it existed at the time of the act
R V Hennessy facts
Diabetic who suffered from anxiety and stress. The stress affected his blood sugar levels so he needed more insulin which he failed to take and committed a driving offence.
D argued non-insane caused by external factors (stress and anxiety)
Judge said it was a direct result of diabetes (Internal) so the jury could consider insanity
D changed plea to guilty and was found guilty, appealed but conviction upheld
D had hyperglycaemia
Legal principles from R V hennessy
1) The factor was internal and gave D the defence of insanity because it was likely to recur
R V Quick case facts
D was a nurse and accused of assaulting a patient.
Diabetic who took insulin but then failed to eat, since an external factor had caused his problems he did not fall into the M’Naghten Rules because the insulin had caused his behaviour not a disease itself
Hennesy was distinguished from R V quick since quick had hypoglycaemia
Quicks conviction was quashed
What is HYPOglycaemia
Low blood sugar caused by taking too much insulin or failing to eat after
What defence would be allowed by hypoglycaemia
Non-insance because the insulin is at fault not the disease of the mind therefore it is an external factor
What is HYPERglycaemia
High blood sugar level caused by failure to take insulin
What defence would hyperglycaemia allow
insanity because the disease is at fault not the insulin therefore it is an internal factor
How have courts made a distinction between internal and external factors
Factors that are likely to recur are more likely to be treated as internal factors, whereas unexpected occurrences are likely to be treated as external
R V Burgess case facts
Burgess hit his neighbour over the head with bottle and video recorder and tried to strangler her whilst he was asleep she cried t which made his wake up, he called for an ambulance
He was charged with wounding and since no MR argued in a state of automatism, judge looked at evidence and ruled no external factors and sleep walking was caused by a sleeping disorder and was likely to recur so was an internal factor
found not guilty by insanity and was detained in a secure hospital
Legal principles from R V Burgess
Sleep walking can be a defect of the mind caused by an internal factor
ordinary stresses and anxieties of life which may have brought about sleepwalking are insufficient to constitute an external factor
If sleepwalking is caused by an external factor such as a blow to the head what defence would be available
non-insane
What is the second element of the M’Naghten test
Defect of Reason
What does defect of reason mean
D’s power of reasoning must be impaired
when would there be no defect of reason
If D was capable of reasoning but failed to use the power
What did R V Clarke conclude a defect of reasoning was
More tha absent mindness or momentary confusion
Case facts of R V Clarke
Charged with shoplifting. D raised the defence of insanity and had acted in a moment of absent-mindedness caused by diabetic depression induced by sugar deficiency
What happened in terms of judgement in R V Clarke
Judge of first instance raised defence of insanity because she had a defect of the mind, D changed plea to a guilty plea.
Appealed to CA, where it was held D’s defence was simply lack of MR not insanity because since temporary absent mindedness is not a defect of reason
Third element of the M’Naghten Rules
D must not be aware of either;
The nature and quality of his act
OR
Did not know what he was doing was legally wrong
What is the nature and quality of an act
The physical nature of the act- did D know what he was doing? IF not may be insanity
Which two situations does nature and quality cover
Unconscious or asleep (Burgees) would not know what he was doing
OR
Conscious, but think he was attacking e.g. a gorilla rather than a human
Which case included both elements of the third element of the M’Naghten Rules
Oye
Police called to cafe where D threw crockery, taken to police station and continued to behave oddly and drank water out of the toilet, when police moved him into a custody suit became aggressive and pushed PC breaking jaw (S47)
He believed the PC had a demonic face and were agents of the evil spirt
Medical evidence showed a psychotic episode and he did not know what he was doing was wrong and he did not know what he was doing.
He was allowed the defence of insanity
If D knew the nature and quality of his act but did not know what he was doing was wrong will he be allowed a defence
YES, only have to satisfy one element
Give an example of not knowing what you were doing was wrong
D thought it was right to kill because he believes D was possessed by the devil
Case where D realised what he was doing was wrong
R V windle: Killed wife and was suffering from a mental illness, but when police came he said “I suppose they will hang me for this” Therefore he knew what he did was wrong
Which case followed R V Windle
R V johnson: D forced way into flat and stabbed V. Suffering from hallucinations and paranoid schizophrenia but he knew the nature and quality of his acts and knew he was legally wrong therefore the defence was not available to him
Codere case facts, which element would he satisfy?
D believed he was cutting bread when he was actually cutting the victims throat
He did not know the nature of quality of his act
Case facts of R V Bilton
defence of automatism can be used in cases of sexsomnia:
D could not recall rape because he had been sleepwalking, there was history of sleepwalking, V slept in D’s bed after a night out and awoke to find D raping her
D was acquitted by was of special verdict
Case facts of R V Ecott
A defence on insanity can be used in cases of Sexsomnia :
raped 15 year old girl and said he had sexsomina.
Which cat has tried to make the situation easier for judges by gicving them wider powers to deal with a special verdict
Criminal Procedure, insanity and Unfitness to Plea Act 1991
What does the act allow the judge to do
admit D to hospital with to without restrictions - In murder the judge must place restrictions
Give absolute discharge
A supervisor order and treatment order
Which act has amended the Criminal procedure, insanity and unfitness to plea act
Domestic violence, crime and victims act 2004
What did the domestic violence, crime and victims act say
Removed guardianship order which was seen was too limp and did not require any treatment
To comply with HR law the judge now had the power to decide if D should be admitted to hospital based on medical evidence not the home secretary
