insanity Flashcards
what is insanity & automatism?
D proves the body acted without any control by the mind this includes insane automatism (insanity) & sane automatism (automatism).
insanity breakdown
up to defence to prove your insanity
verdict is “not guilty by reason of insanity”
sentence PRE 1991- mental hospital
unsuitable for…
people with epilepsy, diabetes, hardening of arteries etc.
sentences
hospital order-with or without restrictions on release
supervision order
absolute discharge
not usually a defence for murder
diminished responsibility became available for murder in 1957 so insanity is now rarely used.
not available for strict liability offences
only available if mens rea is required so strict liability offences cannot put forward this offence as you are guilty as soon as you commit the act.
mcnaughten rules
“every man is presumed to be sane”
“D must be labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality the act he was doing, or if he did he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong”
defect of reason
legal definition not medical, power of reasoning must be impaired.
r v Clarke (dof)
stole from supermarket, didn’t realise she put items in her bag.cant be moments of confusion or absent mindedness
r v sullian (dof)
epileptic, during a fit he hurt an old man. doesn’t matter if defect is permanent or temporary but it must be present at the time of the act.
disease of the mind
legal term not medical
means a malfunctioning of the mind
can be due to mental of physical reason.
r v kemp (dom)
hardening of arteries blocked blood supply to brain, attacked wife with a hammer. defect of reasoning.
r v sullivan (dom)
source of the disease irrelevant, if it affects the mind. epilepsy.
r v Hennessy
diabetic disease was affecting the mind. didn’t take insulin for 3 days. insanity was right defence
r v burgess
sleep walking can be disease of mind if sleep disorder, attacked girlfriend. if due to external cause then automatism.
r v quick
diabetes- nurse assaulted patient, ate insufficient food. external so automatism not insanity
r v coley
psychotic episode induced by drugs. intoxication external factor, insane & auto not applicable as self induced.
nature of act & knowing it was wrong
as not to know the nature of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
r v oye
behaved oddly, believed police were demonic faces and didn’t know what was happening. insanity
r v windle
D gave woman 100 aspirin to kill her. conscious and knew it was wrong. not insanity, knew act was wrong.
r v johnson
went in neighbours flat & stabbed him. he knew it was wrong. not insanity, knew nature and quality of crime.
special verdict
criminal procedure (insanity and unfitness to plead) act 1991
extends the judges options.
prior to 1991 D must attend mental hospital but this wasn’t suitable for diabetes, epilepsy etc
issue-legal not medical
some mental disorders don’t fit mcnaughten rules as they know the act is wrong, some physical illnesses do fit the mcnaughten rules.
issue-overlap with automatism
any illness, mental or physical, which affects their mind or puts them into a state of automatism is insanity. insanity=some order
automatism=complete acquittal
issue-windle
D suffering from recognised mental illness but knows his act was wrong can’t claim insanity
issue-social stigma
should epileptics & diabetics be classed as insane?
issue-proof of insanity
D has to prove he is insane (contradicts innocent until proven guilty) can be complex so should medical experts decide?
