Insanity & Automatism

Question 1

What type of defence is insanity?

Answer 1

General defence

Question 2

Is insanity defined by Parliament?

Answer 2

No, it is common law (judge-made)

Question 3

What percentage of cases of insanity used as a defence

Answer 3

0.01

Question 4

Why is insanity rarely used as a defence to murder?

Answer 4

Diminished Responsibility is a better defence

Question 5

Why is insanity unpopular as a defence?

Answer 5

Nobody wants to go to a mental asylum

Question 6

What is the special verdict of insanity?

Answer 6

“Not guilty reason of insanity”

Question 7

What case defines insanity?

Answer 7

M’Naghten

Question 8

What amounts to defect of reason?

Answer 8

Powers of reason must be impaired

Question 9

Why was there no defect of reason in the case of Clarke?

Answer 9

Must be more than absent mindedness or confusion

Question 10

What is the definition of the disease of the mind?

Answer 10

Legal definition, not a medical one
Can be mental or physical

Question 11

What case shows the source of the disease is irrelevant?

Answer 11

R v Sullivan

Question 12

What is the difference between the case of Burgess and Parks?

Answer 12

R v Burgess - had a sleep disorder therefore was an internal matter (Insanity)
R v Parks - sleepwalker but had 3 external factorsSleep deprived 48hrsMajor physical stress Emotional stress - gambling

Question 13

What is the difference between Hennessy and Quick?

Answer 13

R v Hennessy - forgot to take insulin fell into hyperglycaemic state due to diabetes internal factor (insanity)R v Quick - took insulin failed to eat went into a hypoglycaemic state- insulin was an external matter (automatism)

Question 14

What is insanity also known as?

Answer 14

Insane automatism

Question 15

What is automatism known as?

Answer 15

Non-Insane automatism

Question 16

What is the legal definition of insanity?

Answer 16

The legal definition of insanity has not changed significantly since the M’Naughten case in 1843 and is not explicitly defined by Parliament.

Question 17

What landmark case established the legal definition of insanity?

Answer 17

The M’Naughten case established the legal definition of insanity.

Question 18

Are people with irresistible impulses classified as legally insane?

Answer 18

No, people suffering from irresistible impulses do not qualify for the legal insanity defense.

Question 19

Which case is associated with diminished responsibility in legal insanity?

Answer 19

R v Byrne is the leading case on diminished responsibility.

Question 20

What must be proven under the M’Naughten rules?

Answer 20

The individual must not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong.

Question 21

Can people with certain mental disorders use insanity as a defense?

Answer 21

Typically, those with certain mental disorders cannot use insanity as a legal defense.

Question 22

What legal significance does diabetes have in the context of insanity?

Answer 22

Individuals suffering from diabetes can be considered legally insane, as in the case of Hennessy.

Question 23

What legal case involved the hardening of arteries in relation to insanity?

Answer 23

The case of Kemp involved hardening of arteries and established a precedent for legal insanity.

Question 24

Are sleepwalkers considered legally insane?

Answer 24

Yes, individuals who are sleepwalking can be classified as legally insane, as seen in the case of Burgess.

Question 25

What does the law consider regarding physical illnesses in relation to insanity?

Answer 25

The law recognizes certain physical illnesses, like diabetes, as grounds for legal insanity.

Question 26

Is there a clear legal definition of insanity provided by Parliament?

Answer 26

No, Parliament has never defined what insanity is in legal terms.

Question 27

What is a key requirement for an insanity defense under M’Naughten rules?

Answer 27

The individual must not know that what they were doing was wrong.

Question 28

What implications does R v Byrne have in legal discussions of insanity?

Answer 28

R v Byrne implications involve awareness of wrongdoing and diminished responsibility.

Question 29

What is the relationship between the M’Naughten case and modern legal insanity concepts?

Answer 29

The concepts related to legal insanity today stem from the rulings in the M’Naughten case.

Question 30

How does society view those suffering from physical illness in a legal context?

Answer 30

The law may consider people with physical illnesses legally insane, depending on the circumstances.

Question 31

What is the third element of the M’Naughten rules?

Answer 31

The third element states that the individual must be unaware that what they did was wrong.

Question 32

Can psychopaths claim legal insanity?

Answer 32

No, psychopaths like Byrne were aware of their actions and cannot claim legal insanity.

Question 33

For whom does the legal definition of insanity not apply?

Answer 33

The legal definition does not apply to those with mental disorders that do not impair awareness of wrongdoing.

Question 34

What is the significance of the term 'irresistible impulse' in legal insanity?

Answer 34

Irresistible impulse does not qualify an individual for the legal insanity defense.

Question 35

What role does public policy play in the definition of insanity?

Answer 35

Public policy is influenced by how the law distinguishes between mental and physical conditions in assessing insanity.

Question 36

What is Insane Automatism?

Answer 36

A defense where the cause of automatism is a disease of the mind, leading to a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Question 37

What is Non-Insane Automatism?

Answer 37

A defense where the cause is an external factor, resulting in a complete defense and the defendant being not guilty.

Question 38

What is insanity as a defense in law?

Answer 38

A general defense available to all crimes, used rarely and constituting approximately 1% of cases.

Question 39

What does a successful insanity defense result in?

Answer 39

A special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' is given.

Question 40

What are the M’Naghten Rules?

Answer 40

Legal criteria for insanity established in 1843, defining when a defendant is considered insane.

Question 41

What must be proven for an insanity defense under the M’Naghten Rules?

Answer 41

1. A defect of reason. 2. Resulting from a disease of the mind. 3. Causing the defendant not to know the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong.

Question 42

What case defines insanity in law?

Answer 42

The M’Naghten case (1843) defines the insanity criteria in law.

Question 43

What does 'defect of reason' mean?

Answer 43

It means the powers of reasoning are impaired; mere absent-mindedness is not sufficient.

Question 44

What is a 'disease of the mind' in legal terms?

Answer 44

It refers to any legal condition affecting mental functioning, and is not restricted to medical definitions.

Question 45

What was the ruling in R v Kemp (1956)?

Answer 45

Hardening of the arteries was classified as a disease of the mind under the M’Naghten Rules.

Question 46

What does 'not knowing the nature and quality of the act' refer to?

Answer 46

It refers to being in a state of unconsciousness or not understanding the act due to mental illness.

Question 47

What does legal 'wrong' mean in terms of insanity?

Answer 47

It means being aware that the act is legally wrong, not just morally wrong.

Question 48

What was significant about R v Windle (1952)?

Answer 48

The defendant knew his actions were wrong in law, which negated the insanity defense.

Question 49

What options does the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 provide?

Answer 49

It allows for a hospital order, supervision order, or absolute discharge for defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Question 50

What is the key difference between Insane and Non-Insane Automatism?

Answer 50

Insane automatism arises from internal causes, while non-insane automatism arises from external factors.

Question 51

What is the legal consequence of self-induced automatism?

Answer 51

Self-induced automatism is not a defense for basic intent crimes if the automatic state was brought about recklessly.

Question 52

What does R v Bailey (1983) establish about recklessness in automatism?

Answer 52

Where self-induced automatism is caused through drink or drugs, the defense cannot be used.

Question 53

What is a special verdict in insanity cases?

Answer 53

A verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' that implies a defendant may be confined to a mental institution.

Question 54

What does the law say about social stigma associated with insanity?

Answer 54

There is inherent social stigma attached to being declared insane in legal terms, affecting the individual's reputation.

Question 55

Explain the cross-over between insanity and automatism?

Answer 55

Insanity is an internal condition, whereas automatism is a response to external factors.