Insanity

Question 1

When was it created?

Answer 1

19c.

Question 2

What offences is it available for? Give a case?

Answer 2

Available for all offences – Loake v DPP [2017]

Question 3

What else can it be called?

Answer 3

Insane automatism.

Question 3

What else can it be called?

Answer 3

Insane automatism.

Question 4

What definition does it follow?

Answer 4

Follows a legal definition
Does not follow the current medical definition of insanity.
Defined in common law following the ruling in R v M’Naghten [1843]:
M’Naughten Rules

Question 5

Who does the burden of proof lie with?

Answer 5

Burden of proof is on the defendant to prove insanity at the time the crime was committed.

Question 6

What are the M’Haughten Rules? Can they be used for strict liability offences?

Answer 6

Three elements to the definition:
The defendant was suffering from a defect of reason;
Caused by a disease of the Mind;
That causes the defendant not to know the nature and quality of their act, or not know what they are doing is wrong.
Can be used as a defence to strict liability offences.

Question 7

What is a defect of reason? Does it have to be permanent?

Answer 7

Defendant’s powers of reasoning must be impaired.
If the defendant is capable of reasoning but has failed to use those powers, then this is not a defect of reason.
It doesn’t matter whether the defect of reason was temporary or permanent.

Question 8

Give a case for temporary defect of reason.

Answer 8

R v Sullivan (1984) – the defendant was treated as suffering from a defect of reason when he suffered from an epileptic fit which was inevitably a temporary state.

R v Smith (Mark) [2012]

Question 9

Can it be mere absentmindedness? Give a case?

Answer 9

The defect must be more than absent-mindedness or confusion.
R v Clarke (1972)

Question 10

What is a disease of the mind?

Answer 10

Disease of the mind is a legal term, not a medical one.
Refers to a malfunctioning of the mind by a mental disease or a physical disease.

Question 11

Arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries)

Answer 11

R v Kemp (1957);

Question 12

Epilepsy

Answer 12

R v Sullivan (1984);

Question 13

Diabetes

Answer 13

R v Hennessy (1989); and

Question 14

Sleepwalking

Answer 14

R v Burgess (1991).

Question 15

What did R v Sullivan give us?

Answer 15

The ruling in Sullivan provided that the defect of reason and the disease of the mind only had to be present at the time the defendant committed the act.

The ruling also suggested that:
The disease can be of any part of the body as long as it affects the mind.
The disease can also derive from an ‘organic’ source – disease of the organs.

Question 16

The law will look at whether the disease of the mind is caused by an internal factor or an external factor.
Give an example of both.

Answer 16

Internal factor – not guilty by reason of insanity.

External factor – argue automatism as their defence.

Question 17

What is the difference in R v Quick?

Answer 17

The defendant was a diabetic who had taken his insulin but then not eaten enough. This causes low blood-sugar levels which can affect the brain. In this state the defendant, who was a nurse at a mental hospital, assaulted a patient. The Court of Appeal ruled that his condition did not fall under the definition of insanity. It was caused by an external matter, in this case the drug insulin. This meant that he could rely upon the defence of automatism and was entitled to be acquitted of the charge.

Question 18

Where the defendant voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance, and this causes a temporary psychotic episode, the defendant cannot use the defence of insanity.

Answer 18

R v Coley [2013]

The judge refused to leave the defence of insanity to the jury and the defendant was convicted of attempted murder. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction as the situation was one of voluntary intoxication and the abnormality of mind had been caused by an external act. Nor could the defendant rely on automatism as he had induced the automatic state by his own fault.

Question 19

What does understanding nature of the act mean and what are the examples?

Answer 19

Nature and quality refer to the physical character of the act.
There are two ways in which the defendant may not know the nature and quality of the act:

Because he or she is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness; or
Where he or she is conscious but due to his or her mental condition he does not understand or know what he is doing.

Question 20

Do both the examples need to be satisfied for understanding nature of the act?

Answer 20

Only one.

Question 21

Does understanding the nature of the act cover delusions of the mind?

Answer 21

Yes! Covers situations where the defendant is suffering from delusions of the mind.
E.g. If a person believes that the devil is standing next to them and hits out at ‘the devil’ with a knife, but in fact kills a person, they will not be aware of the nature and conduct of their act.

Question 22

Give a case foe delusions.

Answer 22

R v Oye

The defendant’s defence was that he believed the police had demonic faces a were agents of evil spirits. Medical evidence at the trial was that the defendant had had a psychotic episode and that he had not known what he was doing and/or what he was doing was wrong. Despite that, the jury found him guilty and he appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal substituted his conviction to a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Question 23

R v Windle [1952]

‘I will hang for this’

Understanding the nature of the act.

Answer 23

The appeal was dismissed. The trial judge was correct to refuse the defence of insanity. Wrong, for the purposes of the M’Naghten rules, meant unlawful. It did not matter that he thought his actions were not morally wrong.

Question 24

What did they do in R v Johnson for nature of the act?

Answer 24

However, they both agreed that, despite this, the defendant knew the nature and quality of his acts and that they were legally wrong. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction and stated that the defence of insanity was not available as he knew what he was doing was legally wrong. They followed the decision in Windle where the court held that the word ‘wrong’ meant knowing that the act done was contrary to law.

Question 25

What is a special verdict and what happens if a person is allowed the defence?

Answer 25

Where a defendant successfully proves insanity, then the jury must return a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity.’

Question 26

What does the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 say?

Answer 26

The judge can now impose:
A hospital order (with or without restrictions as to when the defendant may be released);
A supervision order; or
An absolute discharge.

Question 27

What happens under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 for murder?

Answer 27

If the defendant is charged with murder then the judge must impose an indefinite hospital order, meaning the defendant will only be released if the Home Secretary grants permission.