Insanity and Automatism Flashcards
What is the legal definition of insanity?
A defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind, leading to the defendant not knowing the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong (M’Naghten Rules 1843)
What is the defining case for insanity?
M’Naghten - established the rules for the insanity defence
What must the defendant have for insanity to apply?
A defect of reasoning, meaning an inability to think rationally, not just confusion or forgetfulness
What does ‘disease of the mind’ mean?
A legal term for any internal condition affecting the mind, even if its temporary, e.g. epilepsy (R v Sullivan) or diabetes (R v Hennessy)
When does insanity apply regarding the nature and quality of the act?
If the defendant doesn’t understand what they are physically doing e.g. thinking they are squeezing a lemon when stabbing someone
What if the defendant knows the nature of the act but doesn’t know if it’s wrong?
Insanity can still apply, as seen in R v Windle (“I suppose they will hang me for this” - he knew it was wrong, so insanity failed)
What is the legal definition of automatism?
An act done by the body without control of the mind, caused by an external factor (Bratty)
What is the defining case for automatism
The case of Bratty - automatism is an involountary act caused by an external factor
What kinds of external factors can cause automatism?
External factors like being attacked by bees (Hill v Baxter), or a concussion or spiked drinks
Can self-induced automatism be a defence?
Sometimes, if D volountarily causes their own state (e.g. taking drugs/alcohol), it usually cannot be used for basic intent crimes (R v Bailey)
What is the key difference between insanity and automatism?
Insanity = internal cause (mental or physical condition); Automatism = external cause (external factor causing loss of control
What did R v Sullivan establish about insanity?
Epilepsy was held to be a disease of the mind, even though it was temporary; insanity applied because the defect of reason was internal
What did R v Hennessy confirm about internal causes?
Hyperglycaemia (caused by diabetes) was considered an internal condition, so the defence was insanity, not automatism
What did R v Quick establish about external causes?
Hypoglycaemia (caused by insulin and not eating) was an external factor, so the correct defence was automatism, not insanity
How did Hill v Baxter illustrate involuntary action?
Suggested that a person attacked by a swarm of bees and losing control could rely on automatism due to an external cause
