Insanity Flashcards
State whether Insanity can be used for offences of Strict Liability or not.
No, the case: DPP v H- held insanity isn’t a defence to offences of strict liability, as no mental element is required to be proved.
State the rules which apply in determining whether a person should escape criminal liability on grounds of being insane.
Case: M’Naghten- formulates rules:
- Defect of Reason
- Disease of Mind
- D didn’t know nature + quality of act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he didn’t know that what he was doing was wrong.
Explain the rule: Defect of reason, when determining whether a person should escape criminal liability on grounds of being insane.
- D’s power of reasoning of situations must be impaired
- R v Clarke: mere forgetfulness, confusion, or absent mindfulness isn’t sufficient.
Explain the rule: Disease of the Mind, when determining whether a person should escape criminal liability on grounds of being insane.
Defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind.
* R v Kemp: disease can be a mental one or a physical one that affects the mind.
* R v Sullivan: epilepsy comes within the rules of insanity. Source of disease is irrelevant- can be organic (i.e. epilepsy) or functional (i.e. schizophrenia, paranoia), doesn’t matter if impairment was ‘permanent or transient + intermittent’ so long as it existed at the time of D’s act.
* R v Hennessey: high blood sugar levels due to diabetes is sufficient, as sugar levels affect the mind.
* Burgess: in some instances sleep-walking is within the legal definition of insanity.
* R v Kelly: confirmed the decision in Burgess.
* R v Quick: when cause of the disease is from of an external factor, this cannot be insanity.
Explain the rule: Causes the D to not know nature + quality of act, or not know what he was doing was wrong, when determining whether a person should escape criminal liability on grounds of being insane.
2 ways in which D may not know the nature + quality of the act: (only speak about 1)
1) Because D’s in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness.
2) Conscious but due to mental condition, doesn’t understand what he’s doing.
* R v Oye: Where D’s aware of the nature + quality of his act, can still use defence, if he doesn’t know what he did was legally wrong.
* R v Windle: if D’s aware the act was legally wrong then cannot use defence.
Explain Voluntary Intoxication, with regards to Insanity.
- R v Coley: Where D voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance + this causes a temporary psychotic episode, D can’t use defence.
Explain the Special Verdict, with regards to the Defence of Insanity.
- When D successfully proves insanity, jury must return a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’
- Before the Insanity + Unfitness to Plead Act 1991, only course available to judges was to send D to a mental hospital; now have much greater discretion when sentencing.
- If D’s charged with murder, + there’s finding of insanity, judge must impose an indefinite hospital order- hospital can only release D from hospital if the Home Secretary gives consent.
