Insanity Flashcards
Who has the burden of proof when bringing forward the defence of insanity?
It is on the defendant to prove insanity on a balance of probabilities.
What are the rules of insanity based on and explain.
They are based on the M’Naughten rules which was a case in 1843. In this case the D suffered from extreme paranoia and tried to kill a member of the government but instead killed the secretary. The D was found not guilty of murder but wasn’t sent to a mental hospital which caused public outcry so the HoL had to clarify the law around insanity.
What are the 3 rules of insanity needed for the D to prove they weren’t sane at the time of committing the crime?
1) A defect of reason.
2) From a disease of the mind.
3) he D doesn’t know the nature and quality of the act, or that the act was wrong.
What is the outcome of a successful insanity defence?
The D will be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
How is a defect of reason defined (rule 1)?
It means that the D’s powers of reasoning must be impaired, if the D is capable of reasoning but didn’t use these powers it isn’t a defect of reason.
What is the key case for defect of reason (rule 1)?
Clarke (1972)
This case shows that short periods of absent-mindedness don’t amount to a defect of reason.
Who decides if there is a defect of the mind and why (rule 2)?
The judge will decide as it is a legal term rather than a medical one.
Should the disease of the mind be an internal or external factor?
An internal factor only as external would be a question of automatism.
What happened in the case of Kemp (1956)? (Rule 2)
The D had a narrowing of the arteries which reduced blood flow to his head which resulted in lapses of consciousness. During one of these the D attacked he wife but
