Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A2 Law > Insanity > Flashcards

Insanity Flashcards

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

What is everyone presumed to be?

A

Sane
Have free will - choose course of action
Defence tries to distinguish between the responsible + those lacking responsibility

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

What is the defence also known as?

A

Insane automatism

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

What type of definition is insanity?

A

Takes a legal definition - little to do with a medical one

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

What type of defence is insanity?

Name a case that illustrates this point

A

General defence
Used for any crime, including summary
- R v Horseferry Road Magistrates; Court ex parte K (1996)

Can be a complete defence, so long as required MR wasn’t formed

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

What verdict does a successful plea of insanity lead to?

A

Jury return a special verdict of NG by reason of insanity
Judge makes an order (apart form murder, compulsory detention in mental hospital, release on authority of Home Secretary)
Cts still have power over you
NOT the same as an acquittal

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

Before the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to plead) Act 1991 what did a successful plea result in?

A

Compulsory detention in a mental hospital

VERY LIMITED + RESTRICTIVE

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

What has the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to pleas) Act 1991 been amended + replaced by?

A

Domestic Violence Crime + Victims Act 2004

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

What does the Domestic Violence Crime + Victims Act 2004, give judges the power to make, if there is a successful plea of insanity?

A

For offences other than murder a judge may make:
- Hospital Order (with/ without restrictions)
- Supervison Order
- Absolute discharge
Also introduced limit on judge’s discretion - can’t make hospital/ restriction order wither medical evidence (also applies to murder cases)
This change is seen as being in line with the HRA 1998

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

If a D pleads insanity, who had the burden of proof?

A

D must prove insanity on a balance of probabilities

Prosecution can call evidence to try + prove D = insane where they HAVEN’T pleaded insanity

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

Under the 2004 Act, when is a judge allowed to make a hospital/ restriction order?

A

If they have evidence to support the need for the order
For safety of D + public
Seen to be in line with the HRA 1998

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

If a D raises the defence of automatism, what issue can a judge rise?

A

Issue of insanity

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

What is automatism?

A

Separate defence BUT relevant to insanity
Very little legal meaning, describes sense of unconsciousness
Successful plea results in acquittal

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

What case laid down the rules of insanity?

Describe the case

A

M’Naghten (1843) HL - common law
D had obsession with PM + attempted to murder him
Killed secretary by mistake
Ct acquitted him on grounds of insanity
Due to public + media outcry, HL was asked to clarify legal rules on insanity as a defence
3 principles that must be proved to claim insanity

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

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

A

Must be established that at time of the offence, D was suffering from:

  1. Defect of reason
  2. Caused by disease of the mind
  3. So either D didn’t know what he was doing/ didn’t know it 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?

Name a case to illustrate this

A

Complete loss of reasoning power
Mere forgetfulness/ absent mindedness/ failing to use reasoning powers = insufficient

R v Clarke (1972) CA - stealing from supermarket

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

Describe the case of R v Clarke (1972) CA

A

D charged with stealing form supermarket
D argued she had no intention of stealing
Had been acting absentmindedly; suffering from diabetes + depression
Judge ruled insanity = appropriate defence
D pleaded G to avoid insanity finding
On appeal, theft conviction = quashed
Not deprived of reasoning powers, just failed to use them
BUT D didn’t have MR for theft

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

What is a ‘disease of the mind’?

A

Legal term NOT medical term
ID of psychiatric illness isn’t enough
Covers states of minds the doctors wouldn’t necessarily say are diseased of the mind
Legal terms: malfunctioning of the mind
Not confined to disease of brain alone, any malfunctioning of mind caused by something within body will do
Shown in R v Kemp (1957)

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

Describe the case of R v Kemp (1957)

A

D suffered from arteriosclerosis (hardening arteries)
Caused problems with blood supply to brain, temporary blackouts
Attacked wife with hammer causing serious injury during one of these
Charged s20 GBH
Found NG by reason of insanity
Appeal: Ct upheld the finding; law = concerned with the mind, not the brain
= no distinction between a disease of the mind + a disease of the body affecting the mind

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

How did Lord Denning describe the defence of automatism in the case of Bratty v Attorney General for N. Ireland (1963)?

A

‘An act which is done by the muscles without any control of the mind such as a spasm or a reflex action, or an act done b someone who isn’t conscious of what he is doing’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

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

A

‘Condition of the brain = IRRELEVANT + so the Q is whether the condition =curable/ incurable, transistor or permanent’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Describe the case of R v Coley (2013)

What was held in this case?

A

D = regular cannabis user
Whilst on cannabis, went to neighbour’s house
Stabbed her partner causing serious injuries
D claimed he’d suffered ‘psychotic episode’
Ct: when assessing whether there was a disease of the mind, intoxicants taken voluntarily cannot cause such an event
PROMTES PUBLIC POLICY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What are the 2 min judicial theories that have been developed?

A
  1. Continuing danger theory

2. Internal/ external factor theory

23
Q

What is the continuing danger theory?

What case did it originate from?

A

Is the D still a danger to S?
Seems to be dictated by public policy
Originated from Bratty v A.G for N. Ireland (1963) HL

Later confirmed by the case of R v Sullivan (1984) HL

24
Q

Describe the case of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963) HL

A

D strangled a girl with her stocking
Claimed it happened during epileptic seizure
Trial judge: this was an insanity plea
HL upheld this finding
Lord Denning: ‘any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence + is prone to recur = disease of the mind’

25
Q

What did Lord Denning say in the case of Bratty v A.G for N. Ireland (1963) HL ?

A

‘Any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence + is prone to recur is a disease of the mind’

26
Q

Describe the case of R v Sullivan (1984) HL

A

D kicked + injured friend during epileptic fit
Charged with GBH
Medical evidence: D not aware of actions during fit
D pleaded automatism
Trial judge: insanity = appropriate defence
D pleaded G + against judge’s direction
CA agreed with trial judge, conviction upheld
Epilepsy = disease of the mind; during seizure mental faculties could be impaired
= irrelevant if defect = temporary/ permanent

27
Q

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

A

Rabey (1977)

The stress of day to day life causing someone to act criminally will not be allowed as an external cause

28
Q

What 2 cases illustrate the internal/ external theory?

A

R v Quick (1973) - external

R v Hennessy (1989) - internal

29
Q

Describe the case of R v Quick (1973)

A

D had HYPOGLYCAEMIC attack brought on after not eating enough after taking insulin
Attacked patient at hospital where D = nurse
Caused GBH
Claimed he couldn’t remember anything
Trial judge: = plea of insanity NOT automatism
D pleaded G + appealed
CA: quashed his conviction; cause of his state wasn’t diabetes but the insulin + incorrect use
Therefore EXTERNAL factor, jury should’ve been allowed to consider automatism

30
Q

What distinction did the CA make in the case of r v Quick (1973)?

A

Distinction between conditions caused by an outside source (blow to head, wrongful use of medication) + internal sources
Decided, if malfunctioning is caused by…
INTERNAL source, correct defence = INSANITY
EXTERNAL source, correct defence = AUTOMATISM
Confirmed in Sullivan (1984)

31
Q

Describe the case of R v Hennessy (1989)

A

D = diabetic
Charged with taking a vehicle + driving whilst disqualified
At time, D hadn’t taken insulin for 3 days due to stress, depression + suffering from HYPERGLYCAEMIA
Judge ruled insanity = correct defence
D pleaded G + appealed
Appeal = rejected; cause of D’s automatic state = diabetes (internal cause)
CA: trial judge = correct to rule that this was insanity

32
Q

What case should you compare the R v Quick (1972)?

A

R v Hennessy (1989)
Cases made distinction between internal vs external sources
HYPOglycaemic vs. HYPERglycaemic

33
Q

What is the correct defence if the D was sleepwalking at the time of the offence?
Name the case that illustrates this point

A

Internal/ external theory = applied strictly where D claims to have been sleepwalking
Correct defence = insanity

R v Burgess (1991)

34
Q

Describe the case of R v Burgess (1991)

A

Sleepwalking case
D hit female friend with bottle + video recorder after falling asleep watching the film
Also grasped her round the throat
Charged with unlawful wounding
Pleaded automatism
Judge: appropriate defence = insanity
Jury returned a special verdict
CA dismissed the appeal against judge’s ruling
Held sleepwalking = caused by internal factor, therefore ‘disease of the mind’ - defence = insanity

35
Q

Once a suitable disease of the mind has been proved, what must the defence ALSO prove the D lacked at the time of the offence?

Name the 3 cases that show these points

A

Knowledge as to ‘nature + quality of the act OR if he did that he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong’

Nature/ quality: Codere (1916)
It was wrong: R v Windle (1952) or R v Johnson (2007)

36
Q

What was held in the case of Codere (1961)?

A

(D cut wife’s throat thinking it was a lot of bread)

The nature + the quality of the act was held to mean the physical rather than the moral nature of the act

37
Q

Describe the case of R v Windle (1952)

A

D killed suicidal wife with overdose of 100 aspirins
When arrested said ‘I suppose they will hang me for this’
Despite medical evidence D = suffering from mental illness, he KNEW that poisoning his wife was legally wrong
Ct upheld his murder conviction + rejected plea of insanity

38
Q

The ruling in R v Windle (1952) was confined by the CA in what case?
Describe the case

A

R v Johnson (2007)
D = schizophrenic, stabbed his neighbour
Medical evidence showed he knew what he had done was legally wrong
CA held insanity defence = unavailable to him

EVALUATION: CA thought the decision in Windle = strict but felt that they were unable to depart from it, any changes should be made by P

39
Q

What is outdated about the defence of insanity?

A

THE DEFINITION
Stems from M’Naghten case in 1843
Takes little account of medical + psychiatric progress since 1843
Law is out of step with modern medicine
1953 Royal Commission on Capital Punishment reported dotters thought M’Naghten rules = ‘obsolete + misleading’

40
Q

What is a problem with the way that insanity is defined?

A

Takes LEGAL definition not medical
Victorians associated insanity with failure of reasoning powers
BUT medical sickens now recognises that the mind includes emotions + personality
Current definition = meaningless to psychiatrists

41
Q

What is a problem with the ‘all or nothing’ approach that the defence of insanity seems to have?

A

= no verdict of partially insane
D = either sane or insane
This is harsh + could be potentially unjust

42
Q

What is the problem with psychiatrists + the jury identifying if a D was insane at the time of the offence?

A

Lack reliable means of doing so
Medical experts may disagree amongst themselves about a diagnosis + could distort the medical evidence is sympathetic to a D

BUT its the jury, not doctors, that decide if D = insane
May ignore medical evidence when deciding if D = legally insane when offence = committed

43
Q

What issues arise with the stereotype attached to the defence?

A

People who use the defence for reasons such as sleepwalking (burgess) or epilepsy (Bratty and Sullivan) are not actually insane
BUT there = a stigma attached
Defence has been criticise for encouraging a ‘dangerous + outdated’ approach to epileptics

44
Q

How can the internal/ external factor theory be considered harsh?

A

Because it seems absurd to apply the M’Naghten rules to diabetics
Diabetes that causes hyperglycaemia (Quick) can raise automatism
BUT diabetes that causes hypoglycaemia (Hennessy) can only plead insanity
= SAME METABOLIC DISORDER!

45
Q

What comments did the Law Commission make on the Ct’s ruling in the case of R v Burgess (1991)?

What have Canadian Ct done about this issue?

A

Sleepwalking case - creates problems for a D who pleads NG on basis that they = asleep at time of the offence

Supreme Ct of Canada agreed with trial judge in the case of Parks (1992) that defence of automatism could be considered for charges of (attempted) murder
Said internal/ external theory was ‘only mean to be used as an analytical tool + not as an all-encompassing cause theroy’

46
Q

What case shows English Cts taking a more generous approach to cases of sleepwalking, after the case of R v Burgess (1991)?

A

R v Thomas (2009)
D had longstanding sleep disorder
During nightmare, thought he was attacking an intruder in his camper van
D = actually strangling wife of 40 years
Prosecution had been seeking an insanity verdict, until heard about his condition
Prosecution offered no evidence - case = dismissed

47
Q

What does the ruling in the case of R v Kemp (1957) show us about the defence of insanity?

A

= irrelevant whether disease which affects the functioning of the mind = physical/ mental in origin
Definition seems to be based mainly on maximum public safety + policy rather than legal principles/ definitions used by medical professionals

48
Q

What act replaced the Criminal Procedure (Insanity + Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991?
What did it remove?
Why is this seen as better?

A

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
States there MUST be medical evidence which justifies detention in a hospital, even in murder cases
Seen to fit better with the HRA 1998 + addresses previous criticisms

49
Q

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

A

The M’Naghten Rules should be abolished or at least amended to be in line with current medical knowledge

50
Q

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

A

‘NG on evidence of medical disorder’

Would remove the sigma of being labelled insane

51
Q

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

A

Current defence should be abolished + replaced with a special verdict of ‘not criminally responsible by reason of recognised medical condition’
Defence = available where:
1. D suffered from recognised medical condition +
2. At time of offence D lacked criminal capacity

i.e completely lacking the capacity to rationally form a judgement about the relevant conduct/ circumstances OR understand the wrongfulness of the relevant conduct OR control their physical act in relation to the charge

52
Q

What was proposed by the 1989 Law Commission’s Draft Criminal Code?

A

Proposed a mental disorder verdict based on medical evidence

53
Q

What are 4 proposed reforms to the current defence of insanity?

A
  1. Abolish/ amend M’Naghten Rules, in line with current medical knowledge (British Medical Association)
  2. ‘NG on evidence of a medical disorder’ verdict IOT avid stigma (Butler Committee 1975)
  3. Mental disorder verdict based on medical evidence (1989 Law Commission Criminal Code draft)
  4. Abolish/ replace whole defence with special verdict ‘not criminally responsible be reasons recognised medical condition’ - where D suffered from recognised medical condition + lacked mental capacity at time of the offence (Law Commission 2013, Criminal Liability paper)

A2 Law (18 decks)

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