Insanity

Question 1

Why is insanity unlike intoxication?

Answer 1

unlike intoxication, where D’s condition reflects fault on his part, the D whose incapacity derives from a mental condition cannot be held responsible for his actions.

Question 2

What is the fundamental presumption is criminal law

Answer 2

One of fundamental presumptions in criminal law is that D is a normal person who may function within a range of capability and can make choices for himself. Some people are not gives rise for rationale for defence. (Horder)

Question 3

What is the special verdict

Answer 3

Distinction that law draws is that insanity is regarded as a complete defence, D is not guilty or to be convicted but it comes with ‘strings attached’ successfully plea insanity the court can control you to protect society against dangerous conduct.

Question 4

Which case highlighted the need of the special verdict to prevent against dangerous conduct

Answer 4

Sullivan: “the purpose of the legislation of the defence of insanity, ever since its origin in 1800, has been to protect society against recurrence of dangerous conduct” [Lord Diplock]

Question 5

What did Lord Denning in Bratty v AG for N. Ireland argue

Answer 5

any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind…for which a person should be detained in a mental hospital rather than be given an unqualified acquittal

Question 6

What are the modern court orders that a judge can give

Answer 6

This in turn leads to a range of disposal options: hospital order, supervision order or absolute discharge (Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 s.5).

Question 7

Who does the burden of proof lie on

Answer 7

Burden of proof of insanity falls on the defence on a balance of probabilities (recognised in Woolmington)

Question 8

When will unfitness to plead arise?

Answer 8

s 22 DVCVA criteria for when a D is unfit to stand trial

Question 9

Where were the rules for insanity set out

Answer 9

McNaghten: The D was found insane after having made an attempt of the life of the Home Sec, which lead to him killing his secretary instead. There was much debate. He was acquitted, parliament asked the senior judges to explain why, they responded with the McNaughten rules, not in course of the case, but have the same authority

Question 10

What are the elements required for insanity

Answer 10

1) such a defect of reason 2) from disease of the mind, 3) as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong”

Question 11

Does the offence require MR?

Answer 11

According to the recent authority of Loake v the defence applies whether or not the offence requires mens rea. The reasoning from the divisional court, isn’t because the basis of a defence has nothing specifically to do with MR, but based on notion of responsibility for your actions. So, whatever crime you commit, then insanity ought to be available.

Question 12

What is the issue of diseases of the mind

Answer 12

‘Strangely, the fact that D suffers an extreme mental illness recognised by psychiatrists will not necessarily be sufficient to afford a defence in law. Conversely, the fact that D suffers an illness that no psychiatrist would normally regard as a form of ‘insanity’ (eg diabetes) may qualify him for the defence. It seems astonishing that in the twenty-first century the law remains based not on any medical understanding of mental illness but on a distinct legal criterion of responsibility defined by the common law’ (Smith & Hogan, )

Question 13

What is a defect of reasoning

Answer 13

The disease must affect D in a particular way

Question 14

Case for defect of reasoning

Answer 14

Clarke: Clarke: charged with shop lifting. Defence that she had no intention to steal but had acted in a moment of absent mindedness caused by diabetic depression induced by sugar deficiency. Judge ruled that the defence was insanity. Changed plea to guilty.

Question 15

What was held in Clarke

Answer 15

C’s defence was simply one of lack of MR. Temporary absent mindedness did not amount to a defect of reasoning. Only suffer if they are deprived of their full power of reasoning rather than failing to use their powers in full

Question 16

In Clarke what did Ackner say

Answer 16

They do not apply and never have applied to those who retain the power of reasoning but who in moments of confusion or absent-mindedness fail to use their powers to the full”

Question 17

What is a disease of the mind

Answer 17

Any disease which affects the mind puts the D within the definition.

Question 18

how has this been interpreted

Answer 18

widely

Question 19

What does mind mean

Answer 19

Mind has been interpreted as matter concerning reasoning, memory and understanding.

Question 20

What happened in R v Sullivan

Answer 20

epileptic charged with GBH. He was not aware of what he was doing. He wanted to use non-insane automatism, but the judge had to direct the jury to consider insane automatism, therefore D changed his plea to guilty. HL held that epilsey was a disease of the mind because D’s mental faculties were impaired i.e. his reason, memory or understanding. It did not matter that the disease was not permeant as long as it existed at the time of the act.

Question 21

R v Kemp

Answer 21

D suffered a hardening of the arteries that caused temporary unconsciousness. The court rules that this affected his mind and therefore was a disease of the mind.

Question 22

What did Smith and Hogan define a disease as

Answer 22

it seems that any disease which produces a malfunctioning of the mind is a disease of the mind, which is not restricted to diseases of the brain. Physical disease may amount in law to a disease of the mind if they produce the relevant malfunction.

Question 23

Can epilepsy and diabetes be included?

Answer 23

Epilepsy, diabetes may be included. No distinction is made between diseases of the mind and those of the body. Natural to feel reluctance to label someone as insane in the circumstances of Sullivan’s case.

Question 24

Cases of diabetes

Answer 24

R v Hennesy (insane); R v Quick (non-insane)

Question 25

R v Hennesy

Answer 25

Diabetic who did not take sufficient insulin and committed a driving offence. He argued that he was in a state of non-insane automatism caused by an external factor of stress and anxiety. The judge said that because it was a direct result of the diabetes it brought him within the defence on insanity as it was a disease of the mind that was likely to recur. He changed his plea to guilty. The case went to appeal and the verdict was upheld.

Question 26

Rv Quick

Answer 26

accused of assaulting a patient. He relied on the defence of non-insane automatism. Diabetic who took insulin but then failed to eat. Held not to be within the M’Naghten rules. Distinguished. An external factor caused the problem. Lawton LJ admitted that although the law regards some diabetic episodes as insanity, no doctor would refer a diabetic to a mental hospital for that condition alone.

Question 27

Why did Lord Lane argue the rules were necessary

Answer 27

admitted the rules were outdated in particular in labelling a wide range of conditions as insanity. He said it might be necessary to attach that label to prevent a D seeking a complete and unqualified acquittal where there is a risk of recurrence.

Question 28

What have courts indicated that cases will come within insanity

Answer 28

Courts have indicated that those causes which recur are more likely to be treated as internal factors whereas unexpected occurrences are likely to be external.

Question 29

Case of sleepwalking

Answer 29

R v Burgees; in some instances, sleepwalking falls within insanity. Hit neighbour and then tried to strangle her. Argued there was no MR because he was in a state of automatism. Judge concluded that there was no evidence of any external causes and that the sleepwalking was caused by a sleeping disorder that could recur. The court held that the sleep walking was a defect of the mind cause by an internal factor

Question 30

When will sleemwalking not fall within insanity?

Answer 30

ordinary stresses and anxieties of life which may have brought about the sleepwalking were not sufficient to constitute an external factor.

Question 31

What is the final part of insanity

Answer 31

cognitive test

Question 32

What is the cognitive test

Answer 32

Either (a) D does not know nature and quality of act OR, (b) D does not know that the act is [legally] wrong.

Question 33

Why can D come within the defence if he does not the know the nature and quality of his act

Answer 33

Under the first limb the accused clearly lacks MR, if he does not know what doing can’t intend or be reckless, so lacks MR, in a case like Sullivan not acting voluntarily. But because cause of the act is the disease brings within insanity.

Question 34

Why can D come within the defence under the second limb

Answer 34

=Under the second limb, D doesn’t know what he is doing is wrong, true defence in law. Because of disorder lacks a sense that his conduct is wrong.

Question 35

What is the first limb about

Answer 35

Refers to the physical nature of the act. Did D know what he was doing? E.g. If D was unconscious or asleep he would not know what he was doing; or if consciousness, he may think he was attacking a snake

Question 36

Case for N and Q

Answer 36

Oye: Assault against the police. Defence was that he believed the police had demonic faces and were agents of evil spirits. Medical evidence showed that he had a psychotic episode and that he did not know what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong. Conviction replaced with not guilty by way of insanity.

Question 37

What is the second limb

Answer 37

A jury must be satisfied that the accused did not know that what he was doing was legally wrong.

Question 38

Can D come within the second limb is he knew the nature and quality of his act

Answer 38

If D knew the nature and quality of the act but still did not realise he was doing wrong, D can still come within the rules of insanity.

Question 39

Case for legal wrong doing

Answer 39

R v Windle: killed his wife. Suffering mental illness, but knew he was wrong ‘I suppose they will hang me for this’. He showed that he knew what he was doing was wrong and therefore he could not come within the rule.

Question 40

Which case goes beyond the cognitive test

Answer 40

Johnson: D forced way into V’s flat and stabbed him. Suffering hallucinations and paranoid schizophrenia but he knew the nature and quality of the acts and that they were legally wrong.

Question 41

What has happened to the rules in practice

Answer 41

Informed commentators e.g. De Mountford university, the rule is bent in practice partly because need medical witnesses, and medical experts don’t know about legal wrongdoing so much as their patients understanding of right and wrong in a moral sense. SO there evidence leads to defences allowed to go forward, and a blind eye may be turned to widnle in some cases

Question 42

Insanity and self-defence

Answer 42

The CJIA 2008 s.76, which governs reasonable force in self-defence, requires that “the question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be”. (76(3)).
However, in Oye CA held that this did not include insane delusion: insane D cannot ‘set the standards of reasonableness as to the degree of force used by reference to his own insanity’

Question 43

Case of Dowds:

Answer 43

D argued because an acute intoxication from binge drinking could be ‘a recognised medical condition’ and because pre-condition of DR, he could rely on DR even though the condition was one he had voluntarily self-induced. The CA held this was wrong. Must see statutory defence against the back ground of general principle of the common law, although the act in the case