insanity Flashcards
Information on insanity
insanity is a general defence (available to all except strict liability)
The basic presumption is that everyone is sane
the burden of proving insanity is on the defence, on balance of probabilities
HOWEVER, if there is evidence of D’s insanity raised during trial, then the judge or even the prosecution could raise the issue.
The verdict is NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY
what is the law of insanity
D was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, not to know that it was wrong..
The M’Naughten Rules
D, paranoid, in fear of persecution by Tory governement tried to kill Prime Minister. Found not guilty due to his medical condition
what are the key elements of insanity
- defect of reason
- disease of the mind
- not knowing the nature and quality of the act or not knowing that it is wrong
‘defect of reason’
Means that D isn’t capable of reasoning at all.
CLARKE - D claimed that she did not realise she put items from supermarket in own bag whilst depressed (absent-minded). Judge said that this was a plea of insanity so D changed her plea to guilty to avoid this but later appealed insanity defence applied to people who had been deprived of ability to reason, not those who had just failed to use their power of reason. conviction quashed.
‘Disease of the Mind’
LEGAL TERM (not medical term). Kemp - D had arteriosclerosis, affected blood supply into brain, attacked wife with hammer. a disease of the mind includes physical disease that affected the mind. D not guilty by reason of insanity Sullivan - D suffered from epilepsy, attacked neighbour during fit and charged with GBH. medical evidence that D did not know what he was doing due to epileptic fit. Epilepsy os treated as disease of the mind by courts.
what happened in Hennessey
D diabetic, failed to take insulin. drove whilst disqualified. Diabetes is treated by the courts as a disease of the mind
What happened in burgess
D hit and tried to strangle girlfriend in sleep. Evidence from doctor was due to sleep disorder (sleep walking). Defence argued automatism, Jury ruled insanity applied to sleep disorder = internal factor
What is the test
the test is whether an external factor can be identified, if not the jury should assume the cause was internal
‘Not knowing the nature and quality of the act or not knowing that it is wrong’
- D does not know the nature and quality of act - this is where either D was in state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness or if was conscious, D doesnt understand or know what they are doing
- D does not know that it is wrong - D knows the nature and quality of his actions, he can still use the defence if he does not know his actions are legally wrong.
What happened in Windle
D’s wife constantly spoke of suicide. D gave her 100 aspirins, she died. D also had a mental illness but D said Í suppose I will hang for this’
it was held that even though D thought he was morally justified, he knew his actions were legally wrong
what happened in johnson
D was paranoid schizophrenic who believed V had molested his sister. D attacked V. Doctors agreed that D knew the nature and quality of his acts and that they were wrong. Therefore Insanity was no available.
