Insanity and automatism Flashcards
authority, test, effect?
Insanity
authority:
- **M’Naghton’s Case (1843) **- provides the test. (and is the authority)
- Loake [2017] provides the effect
test:
- defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act (defends AR) or… **did not know **he was doing what was wrong (negates MR)
**effect: **
Loake [2017] states insanity is common law defence but also several statutes:
- Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964… makes it incumbent upon a jury, if they find the accused to have been “insane” and they find that he committed the acts with which he is charged = special verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” (as the wording now is).
- D will be held not guilty, but might not be released - (if insane there is a chance of hospitalization or etc.)
S 5 of CP(I)A 1964 - sets out orders (ie hospital order, supervision order, absolute discharge) - wont know which judge will choose until after insanity proven (in case of murder it must be hospital order** with restriction order**) - automatism is more desirable bc more predictable outcome.
authority, test
‘Defect of Reason’
defect of reason is needed for insanity - must establish that D was deprived of power to reason.
def: Kopsch (1927) - impulse which by mental disease deprives D of any power to resist.
defect of reason was found:
Burgess [1991]) :
- failure of the mind causing D to act without conscious motivation
- mind was to some extent causing the act (not a muscle spasm) but D was not consciously aware
not found:
R v Clarke - temporary distraction or absentmindedness will not suffice.
this is the sleepwalking case where instanity was found, helps define scope of defect of reason.
Automatism v Insanity
If disease of mind is internal then insanity.
if disease of mind is external then automatism.
defect of reason must result from disease of the mind.
disease of the mind must be something internal to D. (eg not resulting from medicine)
AUTHORITY:
Quick [1973]: distinguishes internal and external disease of mind:
- internal :
- (disease caused by internal factor alone eg diabetes unmedicated)
- places the burden of proof on the defendant and, if successfully established, leading to the special verdict
- external:
- (disease caused by external factors, eg sideeffects of medication)
- places the burden on the** prosecution** and, if established, resulting in complete acquittal on the grounds of non-insane automatism
‘Disease of the Mind’
If disease is found internal then disease of mind and insanity.
if disease is found external then automatism.
defect of reason must result from disease of the mind.
disease of the mind must be something internal to D. (eg not resulting from medicine)
AUTHORITY:
Quick [1973]: distinguishes internal and external disease of mind:
- internal :
- (disease caused by internal factor alone eg diabetes unmedicated)
- places the burden of proof on the defendant and, if successfully established, leading to the special verdict (Loake [2017] - authority for special verdict)
- external:
- (disease caused by external factors, eg sideeffects of medication)
- places the burden on the** prosecution** and, if established, resulting in complete acquittal on the grounds of non-insane automatism
R v Sullivan [1984] - ‘mind’ is defined as: the ordinary sense of the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding
Hennessy (1989) - def: disease which affects the proper functioning of the mind.
- disease of mind does not mean disease of brain
R v Burgess [1991] - sleepwalking was held to be internal.
‘When is insanity inappropriate’
R v Keal : defence of insanity not acailable to D who, although knew what he was doing was wrong, he believed he had not choice but to commit the act.
Clarke (1972): does not apply to momentary failure to concentrate.
‘nature and quality of the Act’
Codere (1917) :
- nature and quality only deal with physical characteristics of the act (not moral)
Sullivan [1984]: (AUTHORITY)
- more appropriately expressed as whether D knew what he was doing
Loake: examples given where D did not know nature and quality:
- (a) where A kills B under an insane delusion that he is breaking a jar… (b) where a madman cuts a woman’s throat under the delusion that he is cutting a loaf of bread… (c) where a drunken nurse puts a baby on the fire thinking it is a log…
‘Not know he was doing what was wrong’
M’Naghton’s Case (1843):
- if D is conscious that the act was wrong, and **act was unlawful **then punishable.
TEST:* R v Keal [2022]* :
- D must establish both:
- a) D did not know that act was unlawful AND
- b) D did not know that act was ‘morally’ wrong ‘by the standards of ordinary people’.
Insanity as a ‘Defence’
Loake:
- says insanity can be defence to strict liability cases
- it is possible to have MR for criminal offence but still claim insanity - bc defect of reason from disease of mind, not knowing what he did was wrong (eg husband killing wife thinking she is satan).
- if D proves that D did not know nature and quality of his act at time performed then D is not criminally responsible regardless of the first limb (defect of reason) of M’Naghton test - bc D lacks MR.
- (this will not be a complete defence however. Insanity is a complete defence (with special verdict) wheras a lack of MR might lead to lower defence such as manslaughter.)
Insanity and Self defence:
come back to this after doing self defence
Oye [2013]
- exemption of conviction for insanity does not necessarily mean exempt from special verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’.
Insanity and Intoxication
Davis: (AUTHORITY)
- if a distinct disease is caused by drinking (not drunkenness) and bc of it he did not know the act was wrong = then not guilty on ground of insanity.
Coley [2013]: precise line between voluntary intoxication and insane is complicated…
- says it doesn’t matter whether if after the act, D appears to be drunk.
burden of proof, test, scope, effect
(Non-Insane) Automatism
EVIDENTIAL BURDEN:
Bratty [1963]
- presumption that every person has sufficient mental capacity.
- burden is on D to prove defence of automatism
- if proved then need not leave to jury to decide.
TEST:
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994]
- automatism requires total destruction of voluntary control on D’s part. (ie totally involuntary act)
Bratty [1963]
- ‘involuntary act’ = act done by muscles without any control of the mind.
SCOPE:
Coley [2013]
- insanity is not merely and absence of conscious action (seeing delusions or hallucinations) - this clearly falls short of involuntary, as distinct from irrational, action.
EFFECT:
Quick* : completely not guilty.
Causes of Automatism
the cause must be external (Quick)
T [1990]
- previous rape (sexual assault) leading to PTSD could satisfy requirement of defect of reason from an external factor.
- SA was enough evidence to disprove the presumption and then it was up to P to disprove D’s automatism (which it hadn’t done)
WHAT CANNOT CAUSE AUTOMATISM:
Hennessy (1989)
- stress, anxiety and depression are not external factors but products of external factors.
Smallshire [2008]
- Can’t be something reasonably foreseeable
- can’t be self induced (knowingly) or result of disease of mind(insanity)
Automatism and Foreseeablitiy, Prior Fault and Intoxication
Foreseeability:
C [2007] :
- incapacity due to something that might reasonably have been foreseen, as a result of doing or omitting something will not be an excuse
PRIOR FAULT:
Quick [1973]
- self induced incapacity will not excuse
Intoxication:
Majewski [1977]
- Self intoxication prohibits the use of automatism as a defence EVEN IF proven automatic state (doesn’t matter the level of intoxication)
Burgess (1991)
- automatism must be internal, so intoxication usually does not suffice.
