Mental Capacity Defences Flashcards
In relation to… THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY:
what is the significance of R v M’aghten (1843)
The defendant was suffering from ‘morbid delusions’ when he went on to kill a member of the Government, Sir Robert Peel, but killed his secretary by mistake.
The defendant was committed to a mental hospital and as a result of the fact that he would then have been found not guilty and subsequently released caused a public outcry leading to a referral to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords listed a series of questions in an attempt to clarify the law.
These are known as the M’Naghten Rules.
What are the M’Naghten Rules?
a) there is a presumption that every man is sane;
b) this presumption can be rebutted by the D who must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that at the time of the offence:
i) he was suffering from a defect of reason
ii) what was caused by a disease of the mind; and
iii) that he did not know the nature and quality of the act, or that what he was doing was wrong.
What is the burden of proof with insanity?
the burden of proving insanity is the one defence and it must be proven on the balance of probabilities.
The problem is that the jury has the task of deciding if the defendant is insane or not.
It does not mean that that there is an absence of mens rea. It can be a defence of strict liability but only if the person does it because of a delusion. (Loake 2017)
Loake 2017
D was separated from her husband and charged with harassment after sending loads of texts to him. The court said that insanity is a general defence and not only available to cases requiring mens rea.
The case of Loake established the Elements of Insanity.
What are the Elements of Insanity?
i) The defendant was suffering from a defect of reason;
ii) which was caused by the disease of the mind; and
iii) that he did not know the nature and quality of the act, or
iv) that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
Defect of Reason
the defendant must have a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind.
this means a complete loss of the power of reasoning.
If the defendant is capable of reasoning but has failed to use it due to confusion or absent mindedness, then that is not a defect of reason.
what case links to Defect of reason?
R v Clarke 1972… diabetic woman who went to the shops and stole a jar of mincemeat claiming she had no recollection of taking it.
The trial judge ruled that this raised the defence of insanity however the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, stating that ‘defect of reason’ did not apply in these circumstances. They also stated that the rules of insanity do not apply to those who merely have moments of confusion or absent-mindedness.
