Insanity and Automatism Flashcards
Insanity
General defence - can potentially be used for all offences
Special verdict - Trial of Lunatics 1883
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.
Key Case: M’Naghten
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)
Defect of Reason
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.
Sullivan
Defect of reason can be permanent, transient, intermittent.
Defect of reason must exist at the time D commits the act.
Disease of the mind
Definition: “a medical condition which impairs the functioning of mental faculties” e.g Arteriosclerosis.
Internal cause = insanity
Kemp
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”
Burgess
Insanity appropriate defence as D’s sleepwalking arose out of a sleep disorder, which is an internal factor.
Henessy
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)
Does not know the nature and quality of his act
D may not know the nature and quality of his act if:
- Unconscious or impaired consciousness so is not aware of what he is doing.
- Conscious, but due to condition does not understand or know what he is doing.
Codere
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.
OR that D does not know that his act is wrong
If D knows his act is legal, then he will not be able to plead insanity.
Windle
D knew act was wrong because he was aware of the punishment for his crime.
Johnson
D knew what he was doing was legally wrong, but thought he was morally justified. Insanity NOT available.
Automatism
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.
Bratty v AG for NI
Lord Denning automatism definition: “an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind” e.g. sneezing
Involuntary act
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.
Key case: AG’s reference (No 2 of 1992)
Loss of control must be total.
Note: Loss of consciousness could also satisfy automatism.
External factor
Loss of control must be caused by an external factor E.g. Blow to the head, Hypnotism, Bereavement, medication e.t.c
Quick
Hypoglycemia was an external factor (D hadn’t eaten after taking insulin)
R v T
Trauma of being raped (PTSD) was an external factor.
Self induced automatism
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.
Specific intent offences
Require MR of intent - S18 OAPA and Murder
Basic intent offences
Require MR of recklessness - S20 OAPA, common assault, s47 OAPA, involuntary manslaughter.
Self induced automatism and specific intent crime
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.
Self induced automatism and basic intent crime
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.
Hardie
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.
