Insanity

Question 1

Principle comes from

Answer 1

(R v M’Naghten) - a person must have a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind which means that they are unaware of the nature and quality of their actions.

Question 2

Raising the defence

Answer 2

Insanity as a defence is relevant only at the time the offence was committed and is defined by common law.

Question 3

Must be a defect of reason
(1/3)

Answer 3

(R v Clarke)
Based on D’s inability to use powers of reason not mere confusion or absentmindedness.

Question 4

Must be caused by a disease of the mind
(2/3)

Answer 4

The disease of the mind must be a physical disease, rather than one brought about by external factors such as drugs.

(R v Sullivan) - epilepsy
(R v Burgess) - sleep walking

Question 5

The defendant isn’t aware of the nature or quality of his act
(3/3)

Answer 5

Defendant must prove any of the following:
That he did not know what he was doing.
That he did not appreciate the consequences of his act.
That he did not appreciate the circumstances in which he was acting.

D lacks mens rea but because this is a result of his insanity.