insanity and automatism Flashcards

1
Q

What type of defence is insanity?

A

A general defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the result of successfully using insanity as a defence?

A

A special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the consequences of the special verdict for insanity?

A

May result in a Treatment Order (detention in a mental hospital), a Supervision and Treatment Order, a Guardianship Order or an absolute discharge.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the presumption for insanity?

A

Every D is sane, they know what they are doing and can be found guilty. D has to prove they are insane on the balance of probabilities.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the rules from M’Naghten?

A

In order to prove insanity D must be suffering from a:
-Defect of reason, coming from a
-Disease of the mind, so that the defendant either
-Does not know the nature and quality of his act, or that the defendant
-Does not know what he is doing is wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does a defect of reasoning mean?

A

D is deprived of the power of reasoning when committing the crime. It doesn’t matter if this is only temporary, provided they couldn’t use reasoning when they were actually committing the crime. (Think of the defect as the symptoms of the illness or what D was thinking).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does disease of the mind mean?

A

A malfunctioning of the mind. This includes any internal causes (i.e. medical illnesses) that affect memory, reasoning or understanding. These can be both mental and physical conditions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are some examples of diseases of the mind?

A

Arteriosclerosis
-Sleep disorder
-Epilepsy
-Diabetes
-Schizophrenia
-Psychopathy
-Bipolar disorder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Why was insanity the appropriate defence in Hennessy?

A

D was suffering from diabetes and was in a state of hyperglycaemia from the diabetes, making it an internal factor.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What does it mean for D to not know the nature and quality of his act?

A

Either:
-D is unconscious or has impaired consciousness so isn’t aware of what he is doing
-D is conscious, but due to the condition does not understand or know what he is doing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What does it mean that D doesn’t know the act is wrong?

A

Johnson- D must not know that the act is legally wrong.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is automatism?

A

A crime committed by an involuntary act caused by an external factor.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happens when automatism is used successfully?

A

The defence is a complete one and the defendant will be found not guilty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is an involuntary act?

A

Bratty v Attorney General for NI- an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

To what extent must the act be involuntary?

A

D must have no control over their actions- it has to be 100% involuntary. If D has any awareness about what they are doing, they cannot use the defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are some examples of external factors?

A

-Blow to the head
-Hypnotism
-Medication

17
Q

Why is the case of Bailey automatism and not insanity?

A

The involuntary act was caused by an external factor- the insulin itself.

18
Q

How does self-induced automatism work?

A

If D has induced his state of automatism, he can only use the defence if this has negated his mens rea- see rules on voluntary intoxication. The main rule is that D will only have a defence if he lacks the mens rea needed for that crime.

19
Q

How does the case of Bailey relate to self-induced automatism?

A

Taking insulin and then not eating anything meant the automatism was self induced. This makes the automatic state voluntary as he would know the likely side effect of taking insulin without eating anything. This was a specific intent crime (s18) and D was convicted because he still had the mens rea for s18.