Insanity

Question 1

Introduce insanity.

Answer 1

• Capacity defence
• Full Defence- available for any offence (including murder).
• Concerns internal factors that affect the mind.
• If D is found insane- verdict is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’
• DPP v H: Held insanity isn’t a defence to offences of strict liability as no mental element is required.
• M’Naghten: sets out the 3 rules of the offence: Defect of reason, Disease of the mind, Causes D not to know the nature of+ quality of his act, or not know what he was doing was wrong.

Question 2

Explain the first rule of insanity, defect of reason.

Answer 2

• D’s powers of reasoning of situations must be impaired.
• R v Clarke: mere forgetfulness, confusion, or absent mindfulness isn’t sufficient.

Question 3

Explain the second rule of insanity, disease of the mind.

Answer 3

• 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.

Question 4

Explain the third rule of insanity, causes D to not know the nature + quality of the act, or not know what he was doing was wrong.

Answer 4

• 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.

Question 5

Explain voluntary intoxication, with regards to insanity.

Answer 5

• R v Coley: Where D voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance + this causes a temporary psychotic episode, D can’t use defence.

Question 6

Explain the special verdict, with regards to insanity.

Answer 6

• 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.