INSANITY Flashcards
Which offences is insanity available for?
All offences. In a case of murder, a Hospital Order will result but for other offences, there are other sentencing options such as supervision orders and treatment.
Where does it come from?
The rules for this defence were laid down in the M’ Naughten rules (1843) provided a 3 part test.
What the first part of the test?
Firstly, the D must be suffering from a defect of reason (behavior that can’t be explained with a reasonable reason). This means an inability to use powers of reason but must be more than absent mindedness as seen in Clarke. APPLY…
It can be a temporary deprivation of power to reason as seen in Sullivan. APPLY IF RELEVANT.
IS THERE A DEFECT OF REASONING?
What the second part of the test?
Secondly, the defect or reason must arise from a disease of the mind
1. it must be caused by something internal rather than external. This can be internal factors and not just mental factors as seen in Kemp. (diabetes, epilepsy, and sleepwalking)
2, the disease must affect their ordinary mental faculties (ability to think clearly). APPLY
APPLY BOTH PARTS
Is there a disease of the mind?
What the third part of the test?
Thirdly, as result of the disease of the mind, the D must not either know the the nature and the quality of his or her act and must not know that what they were doing was wrong in law as outlined in Windle. APPLY
EVA POINT for insanity
A problem is that the rules were established in 1843 by common law before we knew much about mental illnesses and therefore, we have an antiquated legal test rather than a test determined through medical understanding.Parliamentary intervention is needed as in 177 years, psychiatric medicine has changed beyond recognition.
-E.g. a medically insane person may commit an offence because of mental illness, but knows what they are doing and knows it is wrong. So those suffering from uncontrollable impulses and psychopaths such as Byrne do not come under the legal definition as they know what they are doing even though they cannot prevent themselves from acting.
Arguably they should have a defence, if society is to acknowledge illness properly in dealing with crime and punishment
Another EVA POINT
As this is a legal test and not a medical test it creates absurd decisions. Diabetes (Hennessy), hardening of the arteries (Kemp) and even sleepwalking (Burgess) have all been deemed as insanity. The charitable organisation MIND has criticised the link drawn between diabetes and epilepsy and insanity, saying it encourages a dangerous and outdated views of such illnesses.
Another EVA POINT
Another issue that diabetics are sometimes classed as insane and sometimes not. The court looks at whether the automatic state is due to mental illness or due to external factors. In Hennessy he failed to take his insulin and so he suffered from hyperglycaemia which amounted to insanity. In Quick, he took his insulin but failed to eat and suffered from hyperglycaemia but it was automatism. It is absurd that this fine distinctinction results in different defences with different outcomes, as automatism results in co m[plete acquittal and insanity in some sort of order. It has been suggested that insanity could be extended to cover things such as diabetes and epilepsy so that the D will be liable if he fails to take his insulin or to eat which is morally fairer.
Another EVA POINT
There is a real social stigma attached to the defence of insanity so some defendants choose to not put the defence forward at all as they do not want to be labelled as insane. The use of the word insanity is inappropriate in dealing with someone suffering from any mental disorder in modern society so it should not be appropriate as a label in law as the D may not even have a mental illness. The only justification for this defence is that the internal cause could recur and should in theory be treated but more appropriate could reduce the negative connotations.
Another Eva point
The burden of proof lies on the D. The defence of insanity like that of diminished responsibility, the burden of proof lies on the defence. This may breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that the D is innocent until proven guilty and so he should not prove anything. Clearly, our laws should not break the convention. The Butler Committee has suggested that the burden of proof should be shifted to prosecution to ensure justice but this is yet to be enacted
What are the reform points for insanity?
The BMA recommended to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1953 that the M’Naughten Rules should be abolished or amended.
They suggested that insanity should include when the D was incapable of preventing himself from committing the offence but none of their recommendations were followed and instead the government introduced diminished responsibility which is only applicable to murder
