Insanity

Question 1

What is the legal definition for insanity ?

Answer 1

• The defendant must be “labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” - (M’NAGHTEN)

Question 2

What are the mental capacity defences ?

Answer 2

• Insanity
• Automatism
• Intoxication

Question 3

What are the three elements needed to be proved for the defence of insanity ?

Answer 3

• The defendant had a “defect of reason”
• Which must be the result of a disease of the mind
• Causing the defendant not to know the nature and quality of their act or not to know they were doing wrong.

Question 4

What are the cases for insanity ?

Answer 4

• M’Naghten (1843)
• Clarke (1972)
• Kemp (1956)
• Sullivan (1984)
• Hennesy (1989)
• Burgess (1991)
• Quick (1973)
• Windle (1952)
• Johnson (2007)
• Coley (2013)
• Oye (2013)

Question 5

What is the case of M’Naghten (1843) ?

Answer 5

Definition -

Question 6

What is the case of Clarke (1972) ?

Answer 6

Defect of reason - mere absent mindedness or confusion is not insanity

Question 7

What is the case of Kemp (1956) ?

Answer 7

Disease of the mind - Was within the rules of insanity as his condition affected his mental reasoning, memory and understanding

Question 8

What is the case of Sullivan (1984) ?

Answer 8

Disease of the mind - insanity included any organic or functional disease. it also applied even where it was temporary

Question 9

What is the case of Hennessy (1989) ?

Answer 9

Disease of the mind - if the disease affects the mind then its is within the definition of insanity

Question 10

What is the case of Burgess (1991) ?

Answer 10

If the cause of sleep walking is internal it is a disease within the definition of insanity

Question 11

What is the case of Quick (1973) ?

Answer 11

Disease of the mind - This was an external cause (the effect of the drug) and is bit insanity.

Question 12

What is the case of Windle (1952) ?

Answer 12

Not known nature and quality of act or not know he is doing wrong - he knew what he had done was legally wrong, he wasn’t insane by the M’Naghten Rules .

Question 13

What is the case of Oye (2013) ?

Answer 13

Not known nature and quality of act or not know he is doing wrong -

Question 14

What is the case of Coley (2013) ?

Answer 14

Disease of the mind

Question 15

What is the case of Oye (2013) ?

Answer 15

Not known nature and quality of act or not know he is doing wrong

Question 16

A “disease of the mind” is a legal term, not a medical one….. finish this sentence ?

Answer 16

• It includes both mental and physical conditions that affect the mind.

Cases = R v Kemp - hardened arteries that restricted blood flow to the brain, counted as a “disease of the mind
R v Sullivan - epilepsy was seen as a “disease of the mind
R v Hennessy - diabetes was also a “disease of the mind”

Question 17

If there is an external factor involved in causing the defendant to not know…… finish this sentence ?

Answer 17

what they are doing then this doesn’t count as insanity.

Case - R v Coley - use of cannabis was an external factor in causing the psychiatric episode

Question 18

Proven that the defendant didn’t understand the nature and quality of their act or what they were doing wrong…… finish this sentence and case ?

Answer 18

the “nature and quality” of the act means they didn’t know what they were doing because there were in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness or due to a mental condition.

Case - Oye