Insanity and Automatism Flashcards
what case are the rules on insanity based on
M’Naghten
what is the first rule from M’Naghten
Defendant suffered a defect of reason
what was confirmed in Clarke
the disease of mind has to be a constant thing and not for a brief moment of time
what is the second rule from M’Naghten
defect of reason was caused by a disease of the mind
what was confirmed in Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland
any mental disorder that is prone to recur should be classed as a ‘disease of the mind’
what do all the conditions have in common when they’re considered by the courts
all caused by an internal factor
case for hardening of arteries
R v Kemp
case for epilepsy
R v Sullivan
case for diabetics and not taking insulin
R v Hennessy
case for sleep disorder
R v Burgess
what is the third rule from M’Naghten
Defendant didn’t know the nature and quality of their act, or if they did know, they didn’t know that what they were doing was legally wrong
what are the two ways in which the defendant may not know the nature and quality of the act
- defendant was in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness
- where he is conscious but due to his mental condition he doesn’t understand or know what he’s doing
what was established in Windle
Defendant saying ‘ill suppose I’ll hang for this’ shows that he knows what he did was legally wrong
case for voluntary intoxication and insanity
R v Coley
case for psychotic episode
R v Oye
what is the defence of automatism
defendant is legally sane but is unable to control his actions
first element of proving automatism
defendant is not in control and therefore it is an involuntary act
how was automatism defined in Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland by Lord Denning
‘an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind’
second element of proving automatism
the loss of control was due to an external factor/cause
case for injecting insulin as external factor
R v Quick
case for driver of vehicle not driving voluntarily
Hill v Baxter
third element of proving automatism
there was a total loss of voluntary control
case for impaired, reduced or partial control not being enough
AG’s Ref
case for driver being aware while suffering hypoglycaemia
Broome v Perkins
what was confirmed in Lipman
where self-induced automatic state is caused by the external factor of intoxication, defendant can’t use the defence of automatism
case for self-induced automatism being available for crimes of specific intent
Bailey
case for automatism failing as defendants state was induced through his voluntary fault
R v McGhee
