Insanity Flashcards
Insanity
Insanity was a general defence, so it could’ve been used as a defence for any crime. Although, it is rarely successful and is only used in around 1% of cases.
DPP v H 1997:
Held that Insanity is not a defence to strict liability crimes because no MR is needed to commit them.
M’Naghten Rules
Developed the test for when Insanity can be used,
You must prove:
1. A defect of reason
2. The defect must be a result of a disease of the mind
3. Causing D not to know the nature and quality of the act or not to know what he was doing was wrong.
Defect of Reason
This means the powers of reasoning must be impaired.
If D is capable of reasoning but failed to use those powers, then it is not a defect of reasoning.
R v Clarke 1972:
- Held defect of reasoning must be more than absent mindedness or confusion.
Disease of the Mind
This is a legal term, not a medical one and the ‘disease’ can be mental or physical.
R v Kemp 1956:
-Court held that if the physical was internally caused, it was Insanity not Automatism
(Wanted Automatism because there is no risk of mental hospital and can get a full acquittal)
R v Sullivan 1984:
- Said the source of the disease was irrelevant
- ‘It could be organic, as Epilepsy or functional’
R v Hennessy 1989:
-Said Diabetes counted as Insanity because internal cause
R v Burgess 1991:
-Sleepwalking can be insanity, however, if external cause then it is Automatism.
External Factors
Where the cause of D’s state is not a disease but an external cause, this is not Insanity.
Hennessy:
-D did not take insulin, internal cause
R v Quick 1983:
- D diabetic, took insulin but failed to eat
- Insulin was an external matter and was Automatism
Hyperglycaemia:
Hennessy- Internal cause because too much blood sugar
Hypoglycaemia:
Quick- External because took insulin but failed to eat, too little blood sugar
Special Verdict
When the D proves Insanity, the Jury must deliver the special verdict of ‘Not Guilty by reason of Insanity’.
Until 1991, the judge had to send D to a mental hospital, regardless of the cause of the Insanity.
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991: -Allowed judge to give hospital order only if they felt it was necessary
Criticisms
Overlap with Automatism:
- Automatism and Insanity only difference is External and Internal causes
- Automatism gets full acquittal, Insanity- Judge must impose some order
Social Stigma:
- Insanity has high social stigma
- Inappropriate to apply Insanity to people with Epilepsy or Diabetes
Proof of Insanity:
- D has burden of proof
- Not appropriate for Jury to decide if D is Insane, should be medical experts
Reform
1953 Royal Commission on Capital Punishment:
-suggested M’naghten Rules should be extended so D would be insane if ‘incapable of preventing himself from committing offence.
Government introduced defence of Diminished Responsibility.
1975 Butler Committee:
-Suggested that verdict of Not Guilty by reason of Insanity should be replaced by verdict of Not Guilty by reason of Mental Disorder
1989 Law Commission:
-Proposed D should not be guilty on evidence of severe mental disorder or handicap
No proposal was enacted.
