Insanity Flashcards
McNaghten 1843
McNaghten rules:
Every man is presumed sane until contrary is proved
For the defence of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the party accused was suffering from such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong
(some argue this is against HRA - innocent until proven guilty)
What happens if a plea of insanity is successful?
Special verdict: Not guilty by reason of insanity
This is not a complete acquittal
Under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to plead) Act 1991 - the judge has discretion on how to treat the defendant e.g. could be detained in a psychiatric facility/ wing of the prison until it is felt D is sane again (indefinite/undetermined)
Kemp 1957
Facts: congestion of blood to the brain
Held: Courts would not allow a defence of automatism which is what D wanted for obvious sentencing reasons but decided that condition was suitable for an internal malfunctioning of the mind (insanity)
- abnormality of the mind does not need to involve the brain, but it can
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland 1963
Facts: D murdered a girl while suffering from an epileptic attack, unaware of what was happening
Held: defence of insanity was successful because it was an internal condition - despite epilespsy not being something we would normally consider insane, however it would depend on the severity of the condition as the judge has many options available
Quick 1973
Quick! I’ve got to use my Hypodermic needle
Facts: D has hypoglycemia and took insulin but hadn’t eaten
Held: the insulin was an external factor that gave rise to automatism not insanity
Hypo - hypodermic needle - external - automatism
R v Hennessy 1989
Facts: D was a diabetic (Hyperglycemia) and failed to take insulin and stole a car but didn’t remember doing so
Held: Insanity is the appropriate offence because the condition is internal and the lack of insulin caused this
R v Burgess 1991
Facts: D was a sleepwalker and attacked a woman by smashing a bottle over her head etc
Held; only defence available was insanity because there was an abnormality or disorder, despite being transient, it was due to an internal condition and had to potential to reoccur
Re T 1991
Facts: D was raped and developed PTSD, she committed a robbery while in a trance like state
Held: The rape could be taken as an external factor and so D could use automatism as a defence. This is despite PTSD being easily considered a condition of the mind
Bell 1984
Facts: Mowed down butlins workers because he thought they were agents of the devil
- If the Defendant know the act is legally wrong but feel it is morally right, they cannot rely on the defence of insanity
Broome v Perkins 1987
Facts: In a hypoglycaemic state while driving (automatism) however he braked suddenly sometimes to stop from crashing
- Guilty - couldn’t use the defence as he exercised partial control
Automatism requires a complete loss of control
Hill v Baxter 1958
Facts: Driving and attacked by a swarm of bees and crashed
Held: The automatism must be the result of an external factor
Bailey 1983
Facts: D had taken insulin, drank alcohol and not eaten
Held: automatism cannot be relied on where it is self-induced
Lipman 1970
Facts: D took LSD and hallucinated snakes and ended up killing his girlfriend by shoving bed sheet down her throat
- It was accepted D couldn’t form the specific intent for murder however he could be liable for reckless manslaughter
Hardie 1984
Facts: D took valium to calm his nerves but it made him erratic and he set a fire - criminal damage charge
Held: allowed to use automatism defence as he had not been reckless in that he did not realise valium would have this effect on him as it normally calms people
Clarke 1972
Facts: old lady with depression and diabetes absent mindedly put items in her bag in a super market
- Insanity requires either defect of reason or disease of the mind
Held: short periods of absent mindedness fell short of a defect of reason
