insanity

Question 1

where are the elements of insanity set out?

Answer 1

M’Naghten’s Case 1843

Question 2

what happened in M’Naghten’s Case 1843?

Answer 2

M’Naghten attempted to kill the Prime Minister but instead shot and killed the Prime Minister’s Secretary. He was suffering from insane delusions at the time of the killing. HoL formulated the M’Naghten rules which apply in determining whether a person should escape criminal liability on the grounds of being insane.

Question 3

M’Naghten rules

Answer 3

the accused must prove (on the balance of probabilities) that he was suffering from:
* a defect of reason
* resulting from a disease of the mind
* with the consequence that: D did not know nature or quality of act OR D did not know the act was wrong

Question 4

special verdict from insanity

Answer 4

not guilty by reason of insanity
most recent legislation is - Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004)

Question 5

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004)

Answer 5

extended sentencing options to include:
* hospital order
* supervision order
* absolute discharge
* murder = indefinite hospital order with Home Secretary permission for release

Question 6

test 1 - defect of reason

Answer 6

D’s power of reason must be impaired

Clarke (1972) - forgetfulness/absent-mindedness is not a defect of reason

has to be the inability to reason not just that you didn’t.

Question 7

test 2 - disease of the mind

insanity

Answer 7

The defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind. This is a legal term, not a medical one

If the cause is INTERNAL then it is a disease of the mind

could include typical mental health problems but also includes physical conditions:
* hardening of the arteries (Kemp)
* epilepsy (Sullivan)
* high sugar levels because of diabetes (Hennessy) - where D forgets to take insulin
* sleep walking (Burgess)

Question 8

Kemp (1957)

Answer 8

• husband attacked his wife with a hammer. suffered from hardening of the arteries which lead to a congestion of blood in the brain - caused a temporary lack of consciousness
• The hardening of the arteries was a “disease of the mind” within the M’Naghten Rules

Question 9

Sullivan (1983)

Answer 9

injured friend during epileptic fit
judge ruled that on the evidence the appropriate defence was insanity not automatism

epilepsy - internal factor

Question 10

diabetes as ‘insanity’

Answer 10

if diabetics fail to take insulin or to eat, drink too much or get over-tired:
* hypoglycaemia - deficiency in blood sugar levels - too much insulin for blood sugar levels to cope with (person has injected too much insulin and has not eaten – so person has caused the problem)
* hyperglycaemia - deficiency of insulin and excess of blood sugar levels (body itself is causing the problem)
* Sufferers can become violent and incapable of control

Question 11

Hennessy (1989)

Answer 11

• diabetic took a car after failing to take his insulin
• the trial judge ruled that the appropriate defence would be insanity.
• The hyperglycaemic state was caused by the disease of diabetes itself and not an outside factor of injection of insulin.

They distinguished this case from R v Quick [1973]

Question 12

Quick 1973

Answer 12

• diabetic, took insulin but drank and didn’t eat. Assaulted patient in his care
• pleaded guilty when judge ruled that this was defence of insanity
• The court held that as was an external factor – was automatism NOT insanity

Question 13

Diabetes: external or internal factor?

Answer 13

overdose of insulin - external factor = automatism and possibly acquittal (Quick)

failure to take insulin - internal factor = insanity and special verdict (Hennessy)

Question 14

3) Not knowing nature and quality of the act OR that it was wrong

Answer 14

this can be because the defendant is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness
OR
they are conscious but do not undersand what they are doing

Question 15

3) Not knowing nature and quality of the act OR that it was wrong

Answer 15

D must believe it is not legally wrong. If they do, they cannot rely on the defence of insanity
* Windle 1952 - On arrest he said to the police, “I suppose they will hang me for this”.

• Johnson (2007) - followed the decision in Windle, stabbed neighbour and had paranoid SZ - but he knew the nature and quality of his acts and that they were legally wrong
• R v Codere (1916) - convicted of murder - at the time of the killing he knew that it was unlawful to kill