insanity Flashcards
what are the 2 types of criminal defenses
mental capacity defense
general defense
what is a mental capacity defense
when the defendant did not have the mental capacity to fulfil the mens rea of the offence
what is a general defense
The circumstances of the crime are such that it would not be right, just or fair to punish the defendant for their actions
what are the mental capacity defenses
Insanity
Automatism
Intoxication
what are the general defenses
Self-Defence
Consent
Necessity
Duress
what are the rules for the defense referred to
M’Naghten Rules
what does this case say (exact words)
“in all cases every man is presumed to be sane’’
what are the requirements for insanity (3 with 2 subsections)
- A Defect of Reason
- Caused by a Disease of the Mind
- Meaning D either:
(a) Does not know the nature and quality of their actions, or
(b) Does not know that their actions are wrong
defect of reason meaning
D must be completely deprived of the power of reasoning (using common sense)
defect of reason case 1
R v Clarke 1972
defect of reason case 1and reason
R v Clarke 1972
when d is capable of reasoning but has failed to do this they cant blame
This was the woman who stole the mincemeat as she “forgot to pay”.
Her attempt to claim insanity was rejected – so she was found guilty.
defect of reason case 2
R v Sullivan 1984
defect of reason case 2 and reason
R v Sullivan 1984
The defect of reason can be temporary or permanent, as long as it exists at the time D did the criminal act.
Here this was caused by epilepsy, where D was not in a permanent state of epilepsy but it was “transient and intermittent”
This was still classed as insanity.
disease of the mind meaning (don’t over complicate)
The defect of reason must be caused by a disease affecting the mind.
This is a legal definition – not a medical one.
It can be a mental illness, or a physical illness which affects the mind.
conditions that are included (4)
Hardening of arteries
Epilepsy
Sleep walking
Diabetes
conditions that aren’t included (1)
Psychotic episode due to cannabis
hardening of the arteries case
R v Kemp 1956
It affected D’s mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding, even though it was not a brain condition)
epilepsy case
(Same case as one of the defect or reason ones- think about what the cases are about xx)
R v Sullivan 1984
(The source of the disease is irrelevant. It could be ‘organic, as in epilepsy, or functional’)
sleep walking case
R v Burgess 1991
(Sleepwalking as a result of a sleep disorder is classed as insanity. However if it is caused by an external factor (e.g. being hit on the head), it is not included)
Psychotic episode due to cannabis case
R v Coley 2013
(Voluntary intoxication is an external factor and cannot be classed as insanity – even if it leads to a psychotic episode)
diabetes case
R v Hennessey 1989
Hyperglycaemia from diabetes was seen as an internal factor which was then classed as insanity
what case is the opposite of this
R v quick
whats the difference between R v Quick and R v Hennessy
In Hennessy, the behaviour came about due to a failure to take insulin – therefore the defect occurred within the mind with no external factors. This was low blood sugar leading to hyperglycaemia.
In Quick, the behaviour was due to taking too much insulin alongside a lack of food and prior alcohol intake – therefore these were external factors and not enough for insanity. This was high blood sugar leading to hypoglycaemia.
how could you use ‘D did not know the nature and quality of the act they were doing’
because d is:
Conscious but does not know what he is doing because of his mental state
or
Unconscious or in impaired consciousness so is not aware of their own actions
what is a case to back this
R v Codere
A man sliced his wife’s throat thinking it was a loaf of bread
‘D did not know what they were doing was legally wrong’ meaning
This refers to knowing their actions are illegal.
If D knows their actions are illegal they cannot use the defense of insanity.
This is the case even if their condition makes them think their actions are morally correct.
case to back this
R v Oye (2013)
(Attacked police during psychotic episode as he believed they were demons and evil spirits and he was saving the world)
what is the outcome of using the defense is a verdict of
NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY
what does this need to be followed by (1 act then 1 section (24))
the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 as amended by s.24 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, this gives a judge the option to impose one of the following:
what does this give the judge the option to impose (3)
Hospital Order
This is the only option for a murder charge
This can be for a set time or an indefinite time
Supervision Order
Usually involves treatment programme
Absolute Discharge
D walks away with no further punishment
