Insanity and Automatism

Question 1

Insanity

Answer 1

General defence - can potentially be used for all offences

Question 2

Special verdict - Trial of Lunatics 1883

Answer 2

Successfully using insanity as a defence results in a special verdict: “Not guilty by reason of insanity”

Sentencing options - Criminal procedure (insanity) Act

• Supervision and Treatment order
• Guardianship order
• Absolute discharge

For murder, a hospital order must be given.

Question 3

Key Case: M’Naghten

Answer 3

Courts begin with presumption that D is sane, so D has to rebut that presumption on a balance of probabilities to show otherwise.

The M’Naghten Rules: In order to prove otherwise D must show that at the time of offence, he was suffering from a:
1. Defect of Reason, coming from a
2. Disease of the mind, so that D either
3. Does not know the nature and quality of his act,
OR
4. Does not know what he is doing is wrong (legally)

Question 4

Defect of Reason

Answer 4

Definition: Clarke - D has to be “deprived of the power of reasoning”, more than absent mindedness, confusion, or lack of will power.

People who suffer from uncontrollable urges will NOT be suffering from a defect of reason.

Question 5

Sullivan

Answer 5

Defect of reason can be permanent, transient, intermittent.

Defect of reason must exist at the time D commits the act.

Question 6

Disease of the mind

Answer 6

Definition: “a medical condition which impairs the functioning of mental faculties” e.g Arteriosclerosis.

Question 7

Internal cause = insanity

Kemp

Answer 7

Type of illness can be mental or physical e.g. Arteriosclerosis like D.

Must affect D’s mind, i.e
Mind defined as: “the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding”

Question 8

Burgess

Answer 8

Insanity appropriate defence as D’s sleepwalking arose out of a sleep disorder, which is an internal factor.

Question 9

Henessy

Answer 9

Insanity appropriate defence as D’s loss of awareness didn’t result from operation of external factors upon his body, but has resulted from an inherent physical defect i.e Diabetes, when he forgot to take his insulin (Hyperglycemia)

Question 10

Does not know the nature and quality of his act

Answer 10

D may not know the nature and quality of his act if:

1. Unconscious or impaired consciousness so is not aware of what he is doing.
2. Conscious, but due to condition does not understand or know what he is doing.

Question 11

Codere

Answer 11

The following example of D being conscious but did not understand what he was doing was given: D cut his wife’s throat thinking it was a loaf of bread.

Question 12

OR that D does not know that his act is wrong

Answer 12

If D knows his act is legal, then he will not be able to plead insanity.

Question 13

Windle

Answer 13

D knew act was wrong because he was aware of the punishment for his crime.

Question 14

Johnson

Answer 14

D knew what he was doing was legally wrong, but thought he was morally justified. Insanity NOT available.

Question 15

Automatism

Answer 15

It is a crime committed by an involuntary act caused by an external factor. Where used successfully, this defence is a complete one and D will be found “not guilty”.

D has to initially show that defence might apply - If judge is then satisfied that this is an issue which can be put forward to the jury - prosecution must then prove beyond reasonable doubt that D wasn’t in an automated state.

Question 16

Bratty v AG for NI

Answer 16

Lord Denning automatism definition: “an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind” e.g. sneezing

Question 17

Involuntary act

Answer 17

In crime, the act must be carried out voluntarily. Therefore, if D is not in control of his bodily movements, he will have a defence.

Question 18

Key case: AG’s reference (No 2 of 1992)

Answer 18

Loss of control must be total.

Note: Loss of consciousness could also satisfy automatism.

Question 19

External factor

Answer 19

Loss of control must be caused by an external factor E.g. Blow to the head, Hypnotism, Bereavement, medication e.t.c

Question 20

Quick

Answer 20

Hypoglycemia was an external factor (D hadn’t eaten after taking insulin)

Question 21

R v T

Answer 21

Trauma of being raped (PTSD) was an external factor.

Question 22

Self induced automatism

Answer 22

Refers to situation when D causes himself to be in a state of automatism e.g Prescribed drugs, supplements e.t.c

D WILL ONLY HAVE A DEFENCE IF HE LACKS THE MR FOR THE CRIME.

Question 23

Specific intent offences

Answer 23

Require MR of intent - S18 OAPA and Murder

Question 24

Basic intent offences

Answer 24

Require MR of recklessness - S20 OAPA, common assault, s47 OAPA, involuntary manslaughter.

Question 25

Self induced automatism and specific intent crime

Answer 25

If D induces his automatic state, the offence charged is a specific intent crime and D LACKS MR for it, D can use automatism as a defence.

Or

If D induces his automatic state, the offence charges is a specific intent crime, and D STILL has MR, D cannot use automatism as a defence.

Question 26

Self induced automatism and basic intent crime

Answer 26

Majewski - If the offence is a basic intent crime and D knows the risks involved in how he is actin, then he will have the MR of recklessness and so D will not be able to use the defence.

Question 27

Hardie

Answer 27

If D does not know that his actions are likely to lead him to being in an automatic state, he has not been reckless, and will be able to use the defence.