Insanity

Question 1

What is everyone in the criminal justice system presumed to be?

Answer 1

Sane - we have freewill and can choose a course of action, so we cannot blame people who do not have this ability

Question 2

What is insanity also known as?

Answer 2

Insane automatism - little to do with medical definition of insanity, given a legal definition

Question 3

What type of defence is insanity?

Answer 3

General defence, used for any crime, including a summary offence (R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court ex parte K 1996)

Question 4

What will the verdict be with a successful plea of insanity?

Answer 4

Special verdict - ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’

Question 5

Before the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to plead) Act 1991 what was a successful plea of insanity lead to?

Answer 5

Compulsory detention in a mental hospital, where they could only be released on authority of the Home Secretary
VERY LIMITED AND RESTRICTIVE

Question 6

What has the 1991 act been replaced with?

Answer 6

Domestic violence crime and victims act 2004

Question 7

Under the 2004 act what can the judge make?

Answer 7

a hospital order, a supervision order or an absolute discharge

Question 8

When is a judge allowed to make a hospital order under the 2004 act?

Answer 8

Only with medical evidence, for safety of public and defendant as this is in line with the Human Rights Act 1998

Question 9

What is the burden of proof within insanity?

Answer 9

Defence must prove insanity, the prosecution can also call evidence to try and prove the D is insane where he/she has not pleaded insanity

Question 10

If a D raises defence of automatism what can the judge raise?

Answer 10

Issues of insanity

Question 11

What is automatism?

Answer 11

Separate defence to insanity describing a state of unconsciousness, defined in Bratty v Attorney General for N. Ireland 1963, a successful plea results in an acquittal

Question 12

Where were the rules on insanity laid down?

Answer 12

M’Naughten 1843 (attempt to murder Conservative PM but killed secretary by mistake - paranoia), known as the M’Naughten rules

Question 13

What are the 3 principles that must be proven to claim insanity from the M’Naughten rules?

Answer 13

Defect of reason
Caused by a disease of the mind
So D did not know what he was doing ot did not know that what he was doing was wrong

Question 14

What does a defect of reason mean?

Answer 14

Complete loss of reasoning power - mere forgetfulness or absentmindedness will not do

Question 15

Which case illustrates a defect of reason?

Answer 15

R v Clarke 1972
D stole from supermarket during an absentminded state, argued it came from her diabetes and depression as the minor mental illness can produce this, so convicted
On appeal conviction quashed as she was not deprived of reasoning powers, just failed to use them but did not have mens rea for theft

Question 16

What is ‘disease of the mind’?

Answer 16

Legal term, not medical, so doctors would not call many of these ‘diseases of the kind’ but legally it is malfunctioning of the mind - could come from within the body too

Question 17

What case illustrates disease of the mind?

Answer 17

R v Kemp 1957 (hardening arteries caused temporary blackouts and attacked wife with a hammer causing serious injury) court said there was no distinction between a disease of the mind and a disease of the body affecting the mind

Question 18

What did Lord Devlin say about a disease of the mind?

Answer 18

“Condition of the brain is irrelevant and so is the question whether the condition is curable or incurable, transitory or permanent”

Question 19

What was held in R v Coley 2013?

Answer 19

Intoxicants which are voluntarily taken cannot cause a ‘psychotic episode’ suitable for the defence, he was a cannabis user

Question 20

What are the two judicial theories that have been developed?

Answer 20

Continuing danger theory - is the D still a danger to the public and is s/he likely to be violent
Internal cause/factor and external cause/factor theory

Question 21

What is the continuing danger theory and which case best describes it?

Answer 21

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland 1963 - D strangled a girl with stocking and claimed it happened in an epileptic seizure - HOL allowed it and Lord Denning said “any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind” - principle guided by public policy and need to protect society from dangerous individuals

Question 22

Which case confirmed the ruling in Bratty 1963?

Answer 22

R v Sullivan 1984 - D kicked and seriously injured friend during epileptic seizure, pleaded automatism but trial judge said insanity was appropriate, he appealed but his conviction was upheld
Epilepsy was a disease of the mind because during a seizure mental faculties could be impaired

Question 23

What case can we use from Canada as persuasive precedent for ‘an out of body’ experience?

Answer 23

Rabey 1977 - the stress of day to day life causing someone to act criminally will not be allowed as an external cause

Question 24

What case made the distinction between the internal/external factor theory?

Answer 24

R v Quick 1973 - hypoglycaemic attack bought on by not eating after he took insulin and attacked a patient in hospital where he worked causing GBH - this was an EXTERNAL factor as the cause of his state was from externally taking insulin and failing to eat

Question 25

What case compares with R v Quick 1973?

Answer 25

R v Hennessy 1989 - diabetic charged with driving a car whilst disqualified, had not taken insulin for 3 days due to stress and depression and suffered from hyperglycaemia, he was convicted of insanity as NOT taking the insulin was an internal cause of his state

Question 26

What case can be used to talk about sleepwalking being an internal cause in insanity?

Answer 26

R v Burgess 1991 - hit female friend with bottle and video recorder after falling asleep watching a film, charged with unlawful wounding, judge said appropriate defence was insanity and returned the special verdict

Question 27

What must the defence prove that the defendant lacked at the time of the offence?

Answer 27

knowledge as to ‘the nature and quality of the act, or if he did know it, that he didn’t know that what he was doing was wrong’

Question 28

What case holds that the nature of the act is physical not moral?

Answer 28

Codere 1916 - cut his wife’s throat thinking it was a loaf of bread

Question 29

What type of knowledge must you have that your act was wrong?

Answer 29

Legal knowledge not moral knowledge - R v Windle 1952 killed suicidal wife with overdose of 100 aspirins, when arrested he said “suppose they’ll kill me for this”, despite suffering from mental illness himself he knew he was breaking the law so convicted of murder

Question 30

What case confirmed the decision in R v Windle 1952?

Answer 30

R v Johnson 2007 - schizophrenic who stabbed neighbour and medical evidence showed he knew what he had done was legally wrong, defence denied

Question 31

What is outdated about the defence of insanity?

Answer 31

It stems from 1842 case of M’Naughten and takes little account of medical and psychiatric progress since 1843

Question 32

What is the problem about the definition of insanity?

Answer 32

It is legal rather than medical - medical science now recognizes that the mind includes emotions and the personality

Question 33

Why is insanity an all or nothing approach?

Answer 33

There is no verdict of partially insane - harsh and potentially unjust

Question 34

What is the problem with both psychiatrists and juries telling the defendants state at the time of the offence?

Answer 34

They lack a reliable means of telling if they were insane at the exact time, psychatrists may disagree amoungst themselves but it is the jury, not doctors, who have the last say

Question 35

What is the issue with stereotypes in this defence?

Answer 35

People who use the defence for reasons such as sleepwalking (burgess) or epilepsy (Bratty and Sullivan) are not actually insane but the stigma is attached

Question 36

Why is the internal/external factor theory harsh?

Answer 36

Because it is absurd to apply the M’Naughten rules to diabetes

Question 37

What seems a sensible ruling they have taken in Canada towards sleepwalking?

Answer 37

The deference of automatism could be considered to charges of murder and attempted murder when sleepwalking (Parks 1992)

Question 38

What more recent case have the courts taken a generous approach to the issue of sleepwalking?

Answer 38

R v Thomas 2009 - longstanding sleep disorder and during a nightmare he thought he was attacking an intruder in his camper-van but in fact strangling wife of 40 years, case was dismissed as prosecution could gather no evidence he was insane

Question 39

When will the defence of insanity not be available until parliament make changes to the law themselves?

Answer 39

When you know your actions are legally wrong even if you believe them to be morally right - R v Windle 1952

Question 40

What does the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 fit better in with than the previous act?

Answer 40

Human Rights Act 1998 as the previous rules were in breach of this

Question 41

What did the British Medical Association recommend to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1953?

Answer 41

That the M’Naughten rules should be abolished or amended so they are in line with current medical knowledge

Question 42

What did the 1975 Butler Committee recommend replacing the insanity verdict with?

Answer 42

‘Not guilty on evidence of medical disorder’

Would remove the sigma of being labelled insane

Question 43

What did the Law Commission in 2013 suggest in their ‘Criminal Liability’ discussion paper?

Answer 43

There should be a special verdict of ‘not criminally responsible by reason of recognised medical condition’.
The defence would be available where;
D suffered from a registered medical condition AND
At the time of the offence he lacked criminal capacity ti rationally form a judgement about the relevant conduct or circumstances, or understand the wrongfulness of the relevant conduct or control their physical acts in relation to the charge