General defences (Insanity and automatism) Flashcards
What case does the test for insanity come from
M’naughten
What are the four M’Naughten rules
- defect of reason
- from a disease of the mind
- D doesn’t know nature of his act
- D doesn’t know he has done wrong
Explain the defect of reason element
The defendant must be unable to reason at the time of the offence. This must be more than absentmindedness (Clark)
Explain the law of a disease of the mind
The defect of reason must come from the disease of the mind and this is up to the judge what qualifies
What are the two types of factors that cause a disease of the mind
Internal which qualifies for insanity and external which is used in automatism
Why was hennessey insane and Quick wasn’t
Hennessey’s disease of mind was the actual diabetes disease whereas in Quick it was the result of taking insulin therefore Hennessey’s was internal and Quicks was external
Does insanity include sleepwalking
Yes in the case of Burgess
Does insanity include epileptic fits
Yes the case of Sullivan
Explain the fourth part of the test (did not know what he was doing was wrong)
The defendant must not know that their actions are legally wrong
Why did the defence of insanity fail in the case of Windle
The defendant said jokingly when the police arrested him “i suppose they’ll hang me for this” this shows that the defendant knew that his actions where wrong and the defence failed.
What happened in the case of Johnston?
The defendant had a disease of the mind but he knew is action where wrong and therefore the defence failed
What happens if the abnormality of the mind comes through intoxication
If the intoxication is voluntary then the defence fails as seen in the case of Lipman
What did the case of Bratty vs AG for Northern Ireland define automatism as?
an act done by the muscles without an control of the mind such as a spasm
What are the three main points of the automatism defence?
- D had no control in the act making it involuntary
- This was due to an external factor
- If automatism is self induced then the defence fails
Does the loss of control have to be complete
Yes in the case of AG refs No 2 of 1992 (1994) the defendant had partial control over his actions therefore the defence failed
