Insanity case cards

Question 1

What was the case of M’Naughten (1843)

Answer 1

Area: Insanity
Element: Attempted murder/Murder
Facts: Paranoid individual, attempted to kill government member but instead killed the secretary – because of condition was found not guilty
Principle: M’Naughten showed that there should be a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity using the balance of probabilities

Question 2

What was the case of Loake v DPP (2017)

Answer 2

Area: Insanity
Element: Defence to strict liability offence
Facts: Defendant was separated from husband after obsessively texting him.
Principle: Court decided that insanity is a general defence not limited to crimes requiring mens rea.

Question 3

R v Clarke (1972)

Answer 3

Area: insanity
Element: theft, capable of reason
Facts: Defendant stole from supermarket and charged with theft which she claimed she lacked the mens rea for because she did not recall the action.
Principle: ‘Defect of reason’ only applied to a ‘disease of the mind’ which does not correlate to a moment of confusion or absent-mindedness

Question 4

R v Kemp (1956)

Answer 4

Area: Insanity
Element: Disease of the mind
Facts: Defendant was suffering from hardening of the arteries causing him to have loss of consciousness, he attacked his wife cause serious injury.
Principle: His ordinary mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding had been effected even though it was a ‘defect of reason’ and not of the mind.

Question 5

R V Sullivan (1984)

Answer 5

Area: Insanity
Element: Epilepsy in insanity rulings
Facts: Defendant had a fit and accidentally injured an 80-year-old man during it
Principle: Source of disease was irrelevant, organic insanity is relevant and did not matter if the impairment was permanent or transient.

Question 6

R v Hennessy (1989)

Answer 6

Area: Insanity
Element: Diabetic defendant
Facts: Defendant was diabetic and had not taken insulin for three days he drove a stolen vehicle and claims to have no recollection
Principle: The correct defence is insanity as the diabetes was affected his mind and it was an internal cause

Question 7

R v Oye (2013)

Answer 7

Area: Insanity
Element: psychotic episode
Facts: Defendant was behaving oddly, resulted in him punching a police officer - charged with ABH
Element: Defendant was considered not guilty by reason of insanity because he did not know what he was doing.

Question 8

R v Burgess (1991)

Answer 8

Area: Insanity/Automatism
Element: Sleep-walking
Facts: Defendant attacked his girlfriend in bed whilst sleep-walking
Principle: No evidence of any external cause for sleep-walking- was due to a sleep disorder - not guilty by insanity

Question 9

R v Windle (1952)

Answer 9

Area: Insanity
Element: Murder
Facts: Defendants wife regularly spoke of committing suicide, he gave her 100 aspirins and she died
Principle: Defendant admitted he knew the wrongdoings of his actions, therefore he could not use the insanity defence

Question 10

R v Johnson (2007)

Answer 10

Area: Insanity
Element: Murder/schizophrenia
Facts: The defendant forced his was into a neighbours flat and stabbed him
Principle: Clinical insanity - diagnosed schizophrenia but was aware of the act and how it was legally wrong - insanity offence not available