Insanity

Question 1

Outline the introduction of the insanity model answer.

Answer 1

As D [quote from the scenario] he/she may be able to claim the defence of insanity as the had a defect of reason and disease of mind, without understanding nature of their act or knowing it was wrong.

Three rules from the case of McNaghten must be applied.

Question 2

What is the first step of the insanity model answer? (defect)

Answer 2

Firstly, D must be suffering from a defect of reason. The defendant’s powers of reasoning must be impaired, a person who is confused, absent minded or simply fails to reason is not insane (R v Clarke)

Here the defendant has a defect of reason because [quote from the scenario]

Question 3

What is the second step of the insanity model answer? (origin of defect?)

Answer 3

Secondly, the defect must come from a disease of the mind. This is a legal not a medical term. It can come from a medical or physical disease but must be brought on by an internal factor (Kemp). It can be a permanent, temporary or intermittent state as long as it was present at the time D committed the act (Sullivan)

Here the defendant has a disease of the mind because [quote from the scenario]

Question 4

What is the third step of the insanity model answer? (understand nature)

Answer 4

Thirdly, D must not know the nature and quality of the act or not know that the act was wrong.

CHOOSE WHICH ONE IS RELEVANT:

• Nature and quality refers to the “physical act” (Oye). This means that D can use the defence if he didn’t know what he was doing, didn’t appreciate the consequences of his act or didn’t appreciate the circumstances in which he was acting. Here, D does not understand [explain what they are actually doing] because [explain why they don’t understand what they are doing]
• Not knowing that the act was wrong – this means legally wrong (Windle). The defendant had the mens rea but because of his insanity he didn’t know it was wrong. Here, D does not know that the act was wrong because [explain why]

Conclude