insanity and automatism Flashcards
what is the definition of insanity
stated in the M’Naghten rules 1843, it said that is the defendant wishes to rely on the defence, it must be proves that they laboured under a defectt of reason caused by a dies of the mind, so that they did not know the nature or quality of the act, alternatively, thy did not know what they were doing was wrong.
what does defect of reason mean
disease of the mind must impair the defendants power of reasoning and absent mindedness or confusion is insufficient to show a defect of reason
what does a disease of the mind mean
condition must cause a malfunctioning of the mind.
what can’t the disease of the mind be caused by
external factors
who will determine weather it was a disease of the mind
judge
is disease of the mind a medical or legal term
medical
what is the cases relate to the disease of the mind
R v Kemp 1956
R v Burgess 1991
what happens in the case R v Kemp 1956 relating to the disease of the mind
D suffered from hardening of the arteries causing temporary loss of consciousness, he violently attacked his wife, charged with GBH. LP- disease of mind is a question of law for the trial judge to decide
what case relates to defect of reason
R v Clarke 1972
what happened in the case R v Clarke relating to defect of reason
D charged with their putting groceries,clamied absent mind, whilst suffering with depression not guilty LP- failed to exercise powers
what happens in the case R v Burgess 1991 relating to disease of the mind
D attacked girlfriend while asleep, medical evidence showed that he suffered with a sleeping disorder. Verdict not guilty by reason of insanity
LP- a condition caused by internal factor will constitute a disease of the mind bringing the defendant within the scope of the defence of insanity
when might D not knowing the nature and quality of the act
a defendant may be in this state as a result of:
-state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness
- mental condition which causes them not to know or understand what they are doing even though they are conscious
what does not knowing what they were doing was wrong mean
the defendant requires to fill to understand that what they were doing was legally wrong
what case relates to not knowing what they were doing was wrong
R v Windle 1952
what happens in the case R v Windle 1952 relating to not knowing what they were doing was wrong
D gave wife fatal does of aspirin, he suffered from a mental illness he commented I suppose ill hang for this, these words showed that his actions were legally wrong. Convicted of murder
LP- to rely on insanity the defendant t must know what they were doing was wrong
what does rationale mean
is D is unable to control his behaviour or movements his conduct is involuntary and should not lead to criminal liability
what is the outcome for insanity
special verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’
what is the outcome of automatism
acquitted (forgotten about)
what are the general principles for insanity
-has to be relevant at time of the offence committed
-only relevant if defendant stand trial
burden of proof with D on abalone of probabilities
if prosecution wish to claim it of the D then they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt
options is found insane
-criminal procedure act 1991
-murder=hospital order for life
any other offence
-hospital
-guardianship
- absolute discharge
what does automatism mean
an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion, or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing, such as an act done while suffering from concussion or while sleepwalking
what is the difference between insanity and automatism
insanity- in head
automatism- outside body
what is sane automatism
when D successfully pleads sane for an involuntary or unconscious action they will be acquitted
what does insane automatism mean
defendant pleads insane automatism for an involuntary or unconscious action, the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity will apply
