Insanity

Question 1

what type of offence is insanity?

Answer 1

insanity is a general offence that produces a special verdict- guilty by the reason of insanity
it is also an offence of incapacity pared with automatism

Question 2

what does the burden of prove have to be for insnaity?

Answer 2

• the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities, if the prosecution introduces it they have to prove insanity by all reasonable doubt
  if the defendant brings up the plea of insanity is there reasonability to prove it

Question 3

what happens if a defendant is successfully guilty by insanity?

Answer 3

if a d is guilty by reason of insanity the judge can make an order

Question 4

what would the judge order if insanity was successful before the criminal procedure (insanity and unfitness) act 1991 ?

Answer 4

before the criminal procedure ( insanity and unfitness) act 1991 an successful insanity plea would mean that the defendant would be detained in a mental hospital

Question 5

what did the 1991 act do for how judges ordered succseful insiaty cases

Answer 5

this gave judges a wider range of orders such as the guardianship order , hospital order with and without restrictions under s. 41 of the criu act, a supervisonal treatment order and an absolute discharge

Question 6

name the diffrent types of order judges can use for guilty by reason of insanity

Answer 6

• murder would mean that a d would be hospitalised indefinitely
• hospital order with and without restrictions-
• the supervision and treatment order - may have a duty to see social worker and take specific treatmet
• guardianship order - someone of Ds behalf makes authorisations
• absolute discharge

Question 7

what are the differences between automatism and insanity?

Answer 7

insanity is established by the M nagthen rules and can only be internal causes such as disease illustrated in R V KEMP like diabetes where as automatism is caused by an external factor such as a blow to the head rbith offences are a loss of control and consciousness

Question 8

explain the M naghten rules

Answer 8

the m nagthen rules were designed to define insanity there are 3 elements which need to be proven for insanity to be used

1) a defect of reason
2) a disease of the mind
3) causing the Defendant to know not the nature or quality of his act or not to now what he was doing wrong

Question 9

explain defect of reason?

Answer 9

defect of reason is based on the inability to use the powers of reason , forgetfulness and absent mind are not sufficient enough for proving a defect of the mind,
eg in R V CLARK

Question 10

explain defect of reason

and the case R V CLARK

Answer 10

R V CLARK - this case highlighted the Ds inability to use the power of reason which resulted in DS not being guilty of insanity on appeal instead of the absence of reason which causes the defect.

Question 11

explain disease of the mind

Answer 11

disease of the mind is the second element of the M nagthen rules, this must be caused by the defect of reason.
the disease of the mind is a legal term and not a medical term to referring to the malfunctioning of the mind. eg in R V KEMP

Question 12

what is the importance of R V KEMP

Answer 12

R V KEMP is the case that was used in determining the outcomes and wider range of disease in other cases associated with insanity, r v kemp was the case artierisocleruoisis and established that insanity could be temporary and followed in the case of BRATTY V AS FOR NI

Question 13

what did lord delivin say about R V KEMPS case ?

Answer 13

lord delvin stated that any medical defence demonstrated by violence is a disease of the mind this allowed other diseases and physical aspects to be linked to insanity such as sleep walking in R V BURGUSS

Question 14

name cases that show disease of the mind

Answer 14

R V BURGESS
R V KEMP
BRATTY V AS FOR NI
R V SULIVAN

Question 15

why was R V QUICK not an offence for insanity

Answer 15

R V QUICK was an offence of automatism because the condition was caused by an external factor , the drug insulin which is not insanity

Question 16

cases illustrating diabetics

Answer 16

r v Hennessey and R V QUICK the difference was one type of diabetes was hypo caused by an external factor and hyper glycemjuc caused by an internal factor which is why R V Hennessey was successful in the pea of insanity

Question 17

what is the external/internal theory?

Answer 17

the external and internal theory makes a clear distinction between what is classed as inanity and automatism, an external source would be a blow to the head or the wrongful use of medication eg R V QUICK an an internal source would cause a malfunctioning of the mind which would be classed as insanity

this was confirmed in the case of Sullivan

Question 18

what case confirmed the external/ internal theory ?

Answer 18

R V SULLIVIAN confirmed this theory t

Question 19

what is another type of internal factor that could be classed as insanity that is not apart of the medical definition?

Answer 19

SLEEPWALKING eg R V BURGESS, this is apart of the internal theory developed by judges

Question 20

what were the two theory’s developed by judges ?

Answer 20

• the continuing theory, is he or she likely to be a danger to the public still?
• the internal cause and external cause to provide a clear distinction between insanity and automatism

Question 21

when did the continuing theory originate?

Answer 21

in BRATTY

Question 22

what is the third element of the Mc nathen rules

Answer 22

does D know the nature and quality of his act or does he know the nature of his act was wrong ?

Question 23

what case confirmed the third element for the mcnathen rules?

Answer 23

CODERE - this means the physical nature of his act and satisfied if the d is in a state of consciousness that may be impaired or
they are conscious but do not understand or know what they are doing bitswas not the case in R V WIDDLE

Question 24

give 3 evaluative points on insanity

Answer 24

1- A legal definition is used instead of a medical one , this is unjust for those who suffer from physical defects of the mind and are not fairly represented in the courts example in R V BURGUSS and R v Hennessey , similar defects but only one was successful for insanity which was in R V HENNESSY

2- STIGMA- there is a damaging stigma attached with the offence of insanity and its availability is limited but objective often misrepresenting other diseases that are seen more appropriate and very objective regarding epileptic seizures as seen in bratty and R V Sullivan

3- INTERNAL/ ETERNAL THEORY - seen as harsh, ths judicial development is harsh when applying the rules to diabetics especially those suffering from hypo and not heyper suggesting inconsistency’s.