Insanity and Automatism

Question 1

Clarke (1972)

Answer 1

Insanity failed as the defendant wasn’t deprived of the powers of reason, a defect of reason must be more than confusion or absent mindedness

Question 2

Kemp (1956)

Answer 2

The defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity as a disease of the mind must be temporary, permanent, curable or incurable. (Anything as long as it is internally caused)

Question 3

Sullivan (1984)

Answer 3

The defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity as epilepsy is internally caused and a disease of the mind

Question 4

Burgess (1991)

Answer 4

The sleep walking is caused internally and is therefore a disease of the mind

Question 5

Hennessy (1989)

Answer 5

The diabetic seziure was caused internally as it was caused by the disease of diabetes itself and not the external factor of insulin therefore insanity could be used

Question 6

Quick (1973)

Answer 6

The diabetic seizure was caused externally as it was caused not by his diabetes but by the external factor of insulin and was therefore automatism not insanity

Question 7

Windle (1952)

Answer 7

Knowledge that an act is wrong means the defendant understood that his act was wrong and therefore he was unable to claim insanity

Question 8

Johnson (2007)

Answer 8

The defendant knew his acts were legally wrong but didn’t believe that they were morally wrong he was therefore unable to claim the defence of insanity

Question 9

Broome v Perkins (1987)

Answer 9

The defense of automatism failed as there was evidence to show he had control of the car as he swerved to avoid other vehicles meaning his actions were not involuntary

Question 10

A-G Reference (No2 of 1992)(1993) “(A-G Ref(1993))

Answer 10

The defendant lost partial control of his actions and therefore couldn’t claim automatism as he did not suffer a total destruction of voluntary control

Question 11

R v Whooley

Answer 11

The sneeze was confirmed to be in an involuntary action so automatism would succeed

Question 12

T (1990)

Answer 12

The defendant suffered from a dream like state caused by overwhelming emotion and extraordinary events, the judge allowed automatism but the Jury still convicted

Question 13

Bailey (1983)

Answer 13

The defendants conviction was upheld on appeal, the defendant knew the risk of failing to eat after taking insulin and therefore self-induced automatism can’t be relied on

Question 14

Hardie (1984)

Answer 14

The defendants conviction for arson was quashed on appeal, the Valium had an unusual unexpected effect on him, he had no intent to cause arson due to his intoxication and had not been reckless in taking the Valium so he had no mens rea