Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law A2 > Insanity > Flashcards

Insanity Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What crimes can you have a defence for insanity?

A

All crimes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What happens when a plea of insanity is successful?

A

Jury returns a special verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the 1991 act regarding insanity?

A

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to plead) Act 1991

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What did the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to plead) Act 1991 say?

A

Successful plea results in compulsory detention in mental hospital, for murder it was indefinitely until released on authority of Home Secretary.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What was the 1991 Act replaced by?

A

Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 say?

A

Judge can make: A Hospital Order, a Supervision Order or an absolute Discharge.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the burden of proof of insanity?

A

D must prove insanity on a balance of probabilities.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is Automatism?

A

Separate defence to insanity. Describes a state of unconsciousness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Where was Automatism defined?

A

Bratty v Attorney General for N.Ireland (1963) – “an act done by the muscles, without control of the mind; or an act done by a person who is not conscious.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What happens when a plea of insanity is successful?

A

Results in an acquittal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Where are the rules of insanity laid out?

A

M’Naghten (1843)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What happened in M’Naghten (1843)?

A

Tried to kill someone, killed secretary by mistake.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the legal principle in M’Naghten (1843)?

A

Court acquitted on grounds of insanity. HoL said there’s a general presumption everyone is sane, but it can be rebutted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What must be established at the time of the offence for the D to be able to plead insanity?

A

D was suffering from:
• A defect of reason
• Caused by a disease of the mind
• So D did not know what they were doing OR they did not know what they were doing was wrong.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What does a Defect of Reason mean?

A

Complete loss of reasoning power. Failing to use reasoning powers is insufficient.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the case associated with a defect of reason?

A

R v Clarke (1972) CA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What happened in R v Clarke (1972) CA?

A

D charged with stealing. Argued she had been acting absentmindedly due to depression and diabetes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Clarke (1972) CA?

A

Judge ruled insanity was appropriate. Court ruled she was not deprived of her reasoning power and quashed conviction.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What does it mean by being caused by a disease of the mind?

A

Legal not medical term, means a malfunctioning of the mind, not confined to diseases of the brain alone.

20
Q

What is the case associated with the defect of reason being caused by a disease of the mind?

A

R v Kemp (1957)

21
Q

What happened in R v Kemp (1957)?

A

D suffered from arteriosclerosis which caused temporary blackouts. During which he attacked his wife. Found not guilty by reason of insanity.

22
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Kemp (1957)?

A

Said there was no distinction between a disease of the mind and a disease of the body affecting the mind.

23
Q

What are the two main judicial theories?

A

The continuing danger theory.

The internal cause/factor or external cause/factor.

24
Q

What is the continuing danger theory?

A

Is the D still a danger to the public? Are they likely to be violent?

25
Q

What two cases are associated with the continuing danger theory?

A

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963) HL

R v Sullivan (1984) HL

26
Q

What happened in Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963) HL?

A

D strangled girl during epileptic seizure.

27
Q

What is the legal principle in Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963) HL?

A

Trial judge said insanity was appropriate, Lord Denning said “any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind”.

28
Q

What happened in R v Sullivan (1984) HL?

A

D kicked and injured friend whilst having a seizure.

29
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Sullivan (1984) HL?

A

D pleaded automatism, judge ruled insanity was more appropriate.

30
Q

What is the internal/external factor theory?

A

Decided that if malfunctioning caused by an internal source, correct defence is insanity, if due to external source, correct defence is automatism.

31
Q

What are the three cases associated with internal/external factor theory?

A

R v Quick (1973)
R v Hennessy (1989)
R v Burgess (1991)

32
Q

What happened in R v Quick (1973)?

A

D didn’t eat after taking insulin and attacked a patient – hypoglycaemic.

33
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Quick (1973)?

A

External factor caused attack so on appeal court ruled automatism should have been allowed.

34
Q

What happened in R v Hennessy (1989)?

A

D didn’t take insulin and drove whilst disqualified – hyperglycaemia.

35
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Hennessy (1989)?

A

It was due to an internal cause so trial judge was correct to use insanity.

36
Q

What happened in R v Burgess (1991)?

A

Fell asleep and attacked friend.

37
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Burgess (1991)?

A

Trial judge said appropriate defence was insanity due to it being caused by an internal factor.

38
Q

What case is associated with the nature and quality of the act?

A

Codere (1916)

39
Q

What happened in Codere (1916)?

A

Man cut wife’s throat thinking it was a loaf of bread.

40
Q

What is the legal principle in Codere (1916)?

A

Means the physical rather than the moral nature of the act.

41
Q

What does ‘knowledge that the act was wrong’ mean?

A

Legally wrong not morally wrong.

42
Q

What two cases are associated with knowledge that the act was wrong?

A

R v Windle (1952)

R v Johnson (2007)

43
Q

What happened in R v Windle (1952)?

A

D helped suicidal wife to overdose.

44
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Windle (1952)?

A

Despite suffering from mental illness, he knew poisoning his wife was legally wrong. Rejected plea of insanity.

45
Q

What happened in R v Johnson (2007)?

A

Schizophrenic D stabled neighbour.

46
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Johnson (2007)?

A

Knew what he did was legally wrong, CoA said insanity was not available to him.

47
Q

Evaluate the defence of insanity.

A

Definition of insanity is outdated.
Legal definition, not a medical one.
No verdict of partially insane.
Lack reliable means of telling if D was insane at time of offence.
Objectionable that the label and stigma of insanity is applied to someone who acted during a hyperglycaemic attack or sleepwalking.
Internal/external factor theory is harsh and absurd.

Law A2 (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions