insanity as a defence Flashcards
what is a capacity defence?
the defendant is admitting the actus reas but claiming there is a reason as to why or how they made the mens rea
what are the 3 types of capacity defences?
insanity
automatism
intoxication
how will a defendant get insanity?
through using the M’Naghten rules
M’naghten (1843)
D suffered from extreme paranoia, he thought he was being persecuted by the Tories, he tried to kill a member of the government, Sir Robert Pell but instead killed his secretary. Due to his mental state, D was found not guilty of murder, he was committed to a mental hospital after a public outcry, this led to the HofL clarifying the rule of insanity and creating the rules we use in the legal system.
what are the M’Naghten rules?
the defendant must be ‘labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he w2as doing, or if he did know that, he did not know what he was doing was wrong’
1. defect of reason
2. result of a disease of the mind
3. caused D to not realise his actions were wrong
What is a defect of reason?
the power of reasoning must be impaired, this must be more than absent mindedness or confusion (R v Clarke)
R v Clarke (1972)
D went into a supermarket picked up 3 items then put them in her bag and left without paying them, she was charged with theft but claimed she lacked the mens rea for theft as she had no recollection of putting the items in her bag,
she said she was suffering from depression and diabetes that caused absent mindedness, she pleaded guilty to theft but later appealed.
The COA quashed the conviction as a defect of reason only applies to person who by a reason of a disease were deprived of reason not absent mindedness.
Describe disease of the mind
the defect must be due to a disease of the mind, legal definition not a medical one, this can be mental or physical but must affect the mind.
R v Kemp (1956)
A devoted husband of previous good character made an entirely motiveless and irrational violent attack upon his wife with a hammer. He was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. He suffered from hardening of the arteries which lead to a congestion of blood in the brain. This caused a temporary lack of consciousness, so that he was not conscious that he picked up the hammer or that he was striking his wife with it. He sought to raise the defence of automatism.
The hardening of the arteries was a “ disease of the mind “ within the M’Naghten Rules and therefore he could not rely on the defence of automatism.
principle- law was not concerned with the brain but with the mind.
R v Sullivan (1984)
The defendant had an epileptic seizure during which he kicked the victim in the head violently. He was charged with causing Grievous Bodily Harm contrary to sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, pled guilty to Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to s.47 Offence Against The Person Act 1861 and was convicted of the offence. At the defendant did not recall the incident; further, two medical experts gave evidence that the defendant’s attack on the victim most likely occurred during the postictal stage of the epileptic seizure, at which stage a sufferer makes automatic movements without being conscious of them. The trial judge ruled that the appropriate defence in this case is insanity and not automatism.
The issue for the appeal court was whether epilepsy amounted to a “disease of the mind” within the meaning of R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718 and therefore whether insanity is the correct defence for epilepsy sufferers.
The court agreed with the trial judge’s assessment that epilepsy is a disease of the mind and that therefore the correct defence is one of insanity. Epilepsy is not caused by an external influence, but is rather an internal illness, which affects the mind, hence bringing it under the M’Naghten definition.
Types of insanity
organic insanity-the brain has been damaged by a physical cause such as epilepsy or Alzheimer,
functional insanity- there is no organic reason for the damage to the brain
R v Hennessey (1989)
The appellant (a diabetic) was apprehended while driving a stolen car. He later collapsed at the police station it became apparent that he was having a diabetic episode and that he had not taken his insulin for several days, at least in part because of emotional turmoil due to being left by his wife. Evidence was given that hyperglycaemia (which is what was afflicting the defendant) resulted in drowsiness and possibly degradation of one’s ability to understand what is happening around them, as well as of their physical and mental abilities. Further, emotional states such as anxiety and depression can exacerbate the effect. The appellant did not recall taking the car and at trial relied on the defence of automatism. The trial judge ruled that automatism does not apply to his condition and that he should have relied on a plea of insanity instead. The appellant was convicted.
On appeal against the conviction, the issue was whether the automatism defence had been available to the appellant or whether insanity is the correct defence for diabetics suffering a hyperglycaemic episode.
The trial judge had correctly assessed that insanity is the correct defence to apply to a hyperglycaemic episode, since this is caused by the underlying condition of diabetes and can properly be described as a disease of the mind. Further, automatism refers to situations where the defendant’s actions are involuntary
R v Burgess (1991)
The appellant (B) was charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. His defence was that during the event he was sleep walking and suffering from non-insane automatism. However, the judge ruled that on the medical evidence available the only defence available was insanity. The jury found B not-guilty by reason of insanity.
On appeal, B argued that automatism should not be considered insanity. The Crown argued that B suffered from an abnormal state of mind and it was irrelevant how it arose. The Court accepted that there was a failure in B’s mind which caused him to act as he did. The key issue was therefore whether that failure was a disease of the mind or, rather, a defect or failure of the mind not due to disease.
B’s appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the failure in B’s mind was due to an abnormality which manifested itself in violence and might recur. This amounted to a disease of the mind and the trial judge’s application of insanity as a defence was therefore correct. In particular, the Court noted the absence of obvious external factors (such as, for instance, concussion) which could have caused the failure in B’s mind.
R v Quick (1973)
The appellant (a nurse at a hospital) was a diabetic who suffered from hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar). He had taken insulin in the morning for his condition but had not eaten much during the day and had imbibed alcohol. This lead to an episode in which he blacked out and attacked his victim, who suffered black eyes, bruising and a fractured nose. He later passed out and denies any recollection of the events. At trial he was charged with assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm contrary to s.47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 and was convicted. He had attempted to rely on the defence of automatism, but the trial judge ruled that only the defence of insanity would be available.
On Appeal, the issue was whether a hypoglycaemia sufferer can rely on the defence of automatism or whether only the defence of insanity is available for this condition.
It was held that a sufferer of hypoglycaemia can rely on the defence of automatism because the associated episodes (and the one in this case) are caused by the insulin (or lack thereof) which is an external factor, rather than by the diabetes, which is an internal factor. Therefore the conviction was quashed. No defence would be available for self-induced hypoglycaemia however. A sufferer of hyperglycaemia on the other hand would have to rely on the defence of insanity as episodes associated with that condition are caused by naturally occurring high blood pressure.
Evaluation of insanity as an defence
Quick and Hennessey highlight the problem of using insanity, diabetic people can go into an automatic state for 2 reasons; the disease itself causing high levels of blood sugar (insanity), taking insulin to control blood sugar (automatism)
