Insanity/ Diminished responsiblity Flashcards
What statute governs the defence of insanity?
S. 5(1) Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 provides that if the accused person was at the time of the alleged offence suffering from a mental disorder which was such that the accused ought not to be held responsibl for the act by reason of the fact that they
1) Did not know the nature and quality of the act, or
2) Did not know what her or she was doing was wrong, or
3) Was unable to refrain from committing the act,
The jury shall return a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Common law origins are McNaghten Rules and Doyle v Wicklow CC
s. 1 Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 mental disorder includes mental illness, mental disability, dementia, or any other disease of the mind, but does not include intoxication.
What constitutes a mental disorder/ disease of the mind?
1) Any condition which impairs the mental favulties of reason, memory, and understanding - R v Kemp provides this and that the origins are irrelevant.
2) Any mental disorder which manifests itself in violence and is prone to recur - Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland held epilepsy was a disease of the mind.
3) Any disease which causes the mind to malfunction - R v Hennessy hypergycemia caused a dissociative state.
What constitutes a defect of reason in relation to the defence of insanity?
1) Nature and quality speak to the physical, not legal character of the act - R v Codere.
2) ‘Wrong’ means contrary to the law. In R v Windle the accussed was considered to have known the act was wrong as he said ‘I suppose I’ll hang for this’.
3) Irresistible impulse was introduced in AG v Hayes when a disease prevents a man exercising a free volition to do or not do an act. There must be a causal nexus between the act ant the impulse. Approved by SC in Doyle v Wicklow CC
What statute governs the defence of diminished responsiblity?
s.6(1) Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 provides that if the accused was suffering from a mental disorder which, while not causing a defect of reason, substantially diminshed the accused’s responsiblity for his actions.
Only operates to reduce murder to manslaughter
Can drug addiction ever give rise to a defence of diminished responsibility?
Charleton and McDermott’s Criminal Law and Evidence - where a recognised mental disorder has developed as a result of substance abuse over the years there is no reason it should be excluded simply because of its origins.
DPP v Eadon It was open to the jury to accept a defence of diminished responsiblity as years of substance abuse had altered his brain structure.
What is the law as to non insane automatism?
O’Brien v Parker Total destruction of voluntary control.
R v Quick Due to the application to the body of external factors (hypoglycemia)
R v Hennesy Ordinary stresss, anxiety, and depression do not have the rquisite novelty for non insane automatism.
