Insanity - Invol MSL

Question 1

M’Naughten

Answer 1

Rules of Insanity based on this case - a Defect of reasoning caused by a disease of mind meant D could not understand nature and quality of act OR not knowing hey were wrong (D suffered paranoia and fired gun at Tory PM)

Question 2

Clarke

Answer 2

Defect of Reasoning means inability to reason (D put groceries in her bag and left shop, claiming depression and diabetes made her absent minded)

Question 3

Kemp

Answer 3

Disease of mind (D suffered arteriosclerosis, causing blackout and hitting wife over the head with hammer, defence allowed)

Question 4

Sullivan

Answer 4

(D suffered epilepsy, whilst fitting he injured an old man, defence allowed)

Question 5

Burgess

Answer 5

(D attacked V whilst sleepwalking, internal cause , defence allowed)

Question 6

Hennessy

Answer 6

(D was diabetic, did not take insulin, and stole a car, internal cause, defence allowed) contrast with Quick

Question 7

Coley

Answer 7

(D frequently took cannabis suffered psychotic episode and stabbed neighbour - Defence not allowed as cannabis was external cause)

Question 8

Harris

Answer 8

(D suffered alcohol psychosis and burned down neighbours home - Defence allowed)

Question 9

Oye

Answer 9

D did not understand nature or quality of act (D suffered psychotic episode and assaulted a police woman - defence allowed)

Question 10

Windle

Answer 10

D did not understand what he was doing was wrong (D was medically insane, not legally insane while giving suicidal wife overdose - defence no allowed)