insanity and automatism

Question 1

insanity definition

Answer 1

. leads to a special verdict- not guilty by reason of insanity
. reverse onus- defence must prove of balance- then P must prove beyond reasonable doubt they’re not insane
. insanity does not mean someone does not have an MR, but that they were deluded as to the nature + quality or wrongfulness of the act
. insanity can be a defence to strict liability crimes (Look v DPP)

Question 2

insanity- M’Naghten rules

Answer 2

1. defect of reason
2. must be the result of a disease of the mind
3. must cause the D not to know the nature + quality of their act or not know they were doing wrong

Question 3

insanity- defect of reason

Answer 3

. D’s ability to reason must be deprived- it’s not enough to choose not to use it (R v Clarke)
. can’t choose not to reason>must not have the capacity to reason

Question 4

insanity- disease of the mind

Answer 4

. a legal term (not medical)
. must affect ‘reasoning, memory or understanding’- R v Kemp
. must come from an internal factor (inside the body)
- but it does not have to be ‘permanent or transient and intermittent provided that it existed at the time which D did the act’- R v Sullivan

Question 5

R v Sullivan- organic insanity (disease of mind)

Answer 5

. some damage to the brain or insanity has some physical cause- ie. epilepsy or Alzheimer’s
. eg:
-hardening of arteries (R v Kemp)
-hypoglycaemic diabetes- not taking insulin (R v Hennessy)

Question 6

R v Sullivan- functional insanity (disease of mind)

Answer 6

. there is no organic reason for the damage to the brain
. eg- sleepwalking with no physical known cause (R v Burgess)

Question 7

insanity- intoxication

Answer 7

. where D intoxicates themselves + this has the effect of causing a defect of reason, the correct defence is intoxication, not insanity- R v Coley

Question 8

insanity- PTSD

Answer 8

. PTSD is considered in law not to be organic or function as it is triggered by an external event- R v T

Question 9

insanity- D does not know the nature or quality of their act/ did not know what they were doing was wrong

Answer 9

. can be done in 2 ways:
1. D is unconscious or has impaired conscience
2. they are conscious but due to their medical condition, they do not understand or know that what they are doing is wrong- R v Oye
- means legally wrong, not morally (R v Windle)

Question 10

what a judge can impose from a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity

Answer 10

. a hospital order (with or without restrictions when D may be released)
. a supervision order
. an absolute discharge

Question 11

automatism definition

Answer 11

. AR committed non-voluntarily
. there is an external cause
. as a result of the automatism, the D does not have the required MR
. Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland: ‘An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion; or an action done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing’- Lord Denning

Question 12

automatism- external factors

Answer 12

. insanity- comes from within the person
. automatism- external factors
. taking insulin + then not eating is automatism- R v Quick (the insulin is an external event)
. traumatic events, that cause PTSD is automatism- R v T (the traumatic event is external to the person)

Question 13

automatism- level of control

Answer 13

. the loss of control must be total- Attorney Generals Reference (No.2 of 1992)
. where medical evidence does not suggest a complete loss of control, it will not be automatism- R v Narborough
. a successful plea of automatism will lead to an acquittal due to the lack of MR (like insanity, it can also be used for strict liability offences)

Question 14

automatism- Lord Denning’s distinction in Bratty

Answer 14

. specific intent crimes- crimes that require intention- eg. murder requires intent to kill or do GBH, theft requires intent to permanently deprive
. basic intent crimes- crimes that can be committed recklessly- eg. assault, battery + criminal damage

Question 15

self-induced automatism

Answer 15

. where D takes something appropriately based- eg. medical advice> automatism will be available to them if they have an adverse reaction
-applies to both basic + specific intent crimes
. where D’s automative state arises from some kind of improper action, or failure to do something they should do after the external stimulus- ie. diabetics taking too much insulin or failing to eat after taking insulin
-specific- acts as a defence (R v Hardie)
-basic- it’s not a defence (R v Bailey)

Question 16

automatism- reasons for distinction

Answer 16

. if D knows something will turn them to an automaton but chooses to do this anyway, they are being reckless
. aware of risk + do it anyway> enough to satisfy the Cunningham or R v G and another reckless standard

Question 17

intoxication + automatism

Answer 17

. unable to plead automatism if you intoxicate yourself- R v Coley
. this extends to where you drink alcohol alongside taking drugs that are legal- R v McGhee