insanity Flashcards
insanity
M’Naghten- insanity requires proof of defect of reason, disease of the mind,not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing and if he did , he did not know it was wrong
Defect of reason
R v Clarke1972 - reason must be defective not merely unused
Disease of the mind
R V Burgess 1991-insanity caused by an internal factor and be prone to reoccur but be transient
R v Kemp 1957- any condition that affects the mind can bea disease of the mind not solely mental illness
R v Henessey 1989- lack of insulin meant internal diabetes was the reason
R v Quick 1989 - lacl of food after insulin meant external was the reason
R v Windle Saying they’ll hang me for this showed he knew it was wrong
R v Sullivan 1984- epilepsy - disease of the mind
can not be intoxication even if it causes a psychotic epsiode- Rv Coley 2013
That prevented him to know the nature and quality of act(did not what) he was doing
- no awareness whatsoever
-sullivan 1984- d suffering from some seizure - aware of what he is doing but not aware of the material circumstances of his actions
- d thinks he is killing a monster when in fact he is killing a person
- not aware of the consequences of his act
- D beheads V in the sleep to see V reaction when she will wakeup stephen 1887
- this concerns on the physical aspect of the act
- codere 1916
was wrong
R v Windle Saying they’ll hang me for this showed he knew it was wrong
or that what he was doing was wrong
- test is illegality not immorality- too uncertain
- wrong in law- illegal
- windle 1952 confirmed in johnson 2008
Loss of control (coroners and just act 2009)
defence only to murder
partial defence- reduces charge to manslaughter
introduced by ss 54-55 coroners and justice act 20059 to replace provocation
Loss of control
subjective q: not resonable person, but the defendant
definition: loss of ability to act according to judgment or loss normal powers of reasoning
d must still have the men s rea of murfer and know what they are doing but their powers to restrain themselves are severely impaired
s.54(2)- snapping in slow motion
Rv thornton 1992- battered wife
loss of control does not need to be sudden
S.54(4) – not revenge
R v Jewell2014-s.54(6) reasonable evidence of loss of control. Premeditation undermines this
Qualifying trigger s.55
(1)fears serious violence
(2) grave situation and justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
(1)R v Martin Anthony- excessive
(2) R v Dawes 2013- an ordinary person would believe it was serious wrong
E X C L U D E D s.55(6)
Self induced
Sexual infidelity
R v Clinton 2012- sexual infidelity can be considered along with other grave circumstances if there are many
Might person the same but normal tolerancce and self restraint act the same
objective: not based on reasonable but person of D’s sex and age
and the same circumstances
trigger to be assessed in light of D;s history- Ahluwalia (1992)
reaction must be the same as D not just killing but killing the way D did
DURESS
Definitiion: d is forced to commit the actus reus because under wrongful threat of another
mens rea is also there
-duress is a defence to all crimes except:
- murder
- attempted murder
- certain forms of treason
R v Howe & Bannister (1987)
Test: the elements of duress
- threat of death or serious injury according to D’s beliefe
- reasonable person must have responded to the threat the way the way the D did
SUBJETIVE
threat/circumstance: death or serious injury only (plus other) valderrama- vega1985
Graham 1982
nexus: must be to carry out a specific crime ,cole 1994
Not self induced: voluntary exposure to a risk of coercion to do anything ,sharp 1987
hasan2005
Imminent: immediate or almost, no way out gill 1963
,hasan
Rv Z 2005
most recent cases have relaxed this rule a littes
- Hudson and Taylor 1971 - present=effective to netralise the will of the accused at that time
R v Abdul-Hussain [1999]
imminent peril of death/serious injury is
essential: execution of threat needs not be
immediate
honest and reasonable: def. an ordinary person would believe. If so thereat or circumstance doesnt have to be actual, empty gun safi 2003 , hasan
OBJECTIVE
reasonable person must have responded to the threat the way D did
sober: drunken mistakes generally no defence in law O’grady 1987
reasonable firmness: not just emotional or drug addiction -
hegarty 2005 ,flatts 1996
sharaing characteristics: low IQ excluded but afes gender, pregnancy, physical/mental disability included- bowen
Bowen [1996] 2 Cr App R 157: D’s low intelligence (short of
mental impairment) cannot be taken into account
INSANITY TYPES
two different claims
D was insane at the time he committed the offence
- complex and famous, but very rare in practice
- until 1843 no legislative definition: Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 mentioned insanity without defining it **
- in 1843 a panel of judged were asked by HL to provide answers on insanity
- these are the M’naghtens rules (Mnaghtens case (1843)) first and still calid definition of insanity
- if found insane the defendant is found not guilty, but insane
- D is insane at the time of the trial
- It is not a defence, but a procedural matter
- affects D’s capability of defending himself: D may be unfit to plead
- relevant legislation:
- Ss.4 and 4a of the Criminal Procedure (insanity) Act 1964 as amended by the Criminal Procedure (insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
- when proven that D is unfit to stand trial the judge has wide discretion
- absolute discharge
- admission to hospital with a restraining order
