3.19)Insanity & Automatism Flashcards

(21 cards)

1
Q

Define “Insanity”

A

A defect of reason from a disease of the mind, which means D either does not know the nature and quality of his act or does know it but not that it’s wrong.

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

Define “Organic Insanity”

A

The brain has been damaged by a physical disease, eg epilepsy or Alzheimer’s

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

Define “Functional Insanity”

A

When there is no organic reason for the damage to the brain

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

Where does the definition of “Insanity” come from

A

M’Naghten Rules 1843

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

What does “M’Naghten [1843]” entail

A

D was suffering from extreme paranoia and thought he was being persecuted by the government, so he killed a member of it, but was found not guilty due to his mental state

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

D was suffering from extreme paranoia and thought he was being persecuted by the government, so he killed a member of it, but was found not guilty due to his mental state

A

M’Naghten [1843]

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

Define “Defect of Reason”

A

Ds powers of reasoning are impaired

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

What does “R v Clarke [1972]” entail

A

That moments of confusion and absent-mindedness do not amount to insanity, as D tried to defend theft

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

Define “Disease of the Mind”

A

A legal term meaning either a mental or physical disease

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

What does “R v Sullivan [1984] entail

A

That insanity can be permanent, transient or intermittent, as D injured a man whilst having an epileptic fit and didn’t know what he was doing

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

What are the rules for “Not knowing the nature and quality of an act”

A

1)D is unconscious or has impaired consciousness
2)They are conscious, but due to their mental condition, they do not understand what they are doing

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

What does “R v Windle [1952]”

A

Insanity could not be used when D knows that what they are doing is legally wrong as D during a mental crisis assisted his wife in suicide but then gave himself up

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

What can a Judge impose after a “Special Verdict”

A

1)A Hospital Order
2)A Supervision Order
3)An Absolute Discharge

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

Define “Automatism”

A

An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, or an act done by someone who is not conscious of what they are doing

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

Define “Insane Automatism”

A

When the cause of automatism is a disease of the mind

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

Define “Non-Insane Automatism”

A

When the cause of automatism is external

17
Q

What are the key elements of “Automatism”

A

1)D acts without any control by the mind
2)The cause is external
3)Not self-induced

18
Q

What does “Attorney General’s Reference No 2 [1992]” entail

A

That impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough, and there must be a total destruction of voluntary control as D entered a trance-like state whilst driving, killing 2 people

19
Q

What does “R v T [1990]” entail

A

The defence of automatism was able to be used as Ds dissociative state of mind was caused by an external event of rape leaving her with PTSD whilst commiting ABH and robbery

20
Q

What are examples of “Self-Induced Automatism”

A

1)Knowingly not eating after taking insulin as a diabetic
2)Drinking alcohol after taking medication whilst being told not so by a doctor

21
Q

What does “R v Bailey [1961]” entail

A

D’s conviction was upheld after he assaulted someone over the head with an iron bar after forgetting to eat, after taking insulin as a diabetic, as he failed to provide enough evidence