Insanity Flashcards
Insanity Overview
1) D claims they were insane at the time of committing the act, and so lacked mens rea
2) D claims they are insane at time of trial and so not fit to plead. (won’t look at)
Internal - ‘disease of the mind’
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s.5 (amended by Domestic Violence, Crime and Victim Act 2004: Court must make alternative verdict of either hospital order, supervision order, or total discharge.
Why have insanity defence?
- Lack of rational capacity
- Lack of responsibility
- To allow for the possibility of treatment and rehabilitation
How do you balance alongside the interests of the public. An insane person can’t be deemed safe just because they can’t take responsibility.
Insanity: Mens Rea and Actus Reus
AR: first have to prove that they actually did the crime through act or omission
MR:
Daniel McNaugten’s Case: Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary is proved to their satisfaction.
= insanity is subject to a reverse burden of proof.
Insanity: McNaugten Test
1) Disease of the mind, causing a
2) Defect of reasoning, so that
3) The ‘cognitive test’ applies; either
a) Not know the nature and quality; or
b) Not know the act is wrong
Insanity: ‘disease of the mind’
R v Kemp: Disease of the brain is allowed provided that is affects the mind
R v Sullivan: Psycomotor epilepsy is disease of the mind and for insanity not automatism. Automatism should be used where there is a temporary issue.
- Issue of fair labelling
Bratty v AG for NI: any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind.
Insanity: Diabetic
Hypoglycemia: Brought about by a diabetic taking insulin, but then failing to eat enough to counter the effects.
= external cause so not insanity.
Hyperglycemia: Caused by a diabetic failing to lower blood-sugar levels through insulin, and is therefore internal and so raises the possibility of insanity.
R v Quick: Hypo
R v Hennessey: Hyper
R v Bingham: confirms Quick and Hennessey
Insanity: Defect of reason
R v Clarke: shoplifting. Was absentminded due to depression.
- held she was failing to adequately us her mental powers, not lacking in them.
Insanity: Cognitive test - nature and quality
R v Codere: Only really need nature. Wasn’t intended to have separately, but as one composition phrase.
Insanity: Cognitive test - did not know it was wrong
R v Codere: If D knew it was illegal, he must know it is wrong.
R v Windle: If D knew he was murdering, and murder was illegal, he could not rely on insanity.
Different in Australia/Canada:
Stapleton v R: Rejects Windle. Doesn’t really matter if they know it is punishable by law.
Insanity: Irresistible impulse
R v Kopsh: irresistible impulse not covered
R v Byrne: ‘defect of reason’ is narrower than ‘abnormality of mind’ so can be covered by diminished responsibility.
Insanity: intoxication
R v Coley: Alcohol is treated as an external factor so cannot qualify for insanity defence.
Insanity: Criticism
Lord Butler: Shouldn’t consider whether D knew the act was illegal. It is inappropriate to do so.
Lord Diplock: Troubled. by labelling sleepwalkers, epileptics and diabetics insane.
Winterwerp v Netherlands: Courts decision should be based on objective medical evidence.
- They would not deem diabetics etc insane.
Insanity: Proposed Reform
Draft Criminal Code Bill
Relevant to sever mental illnesses. Would exclude diabetics.
Law Commission: The label of ‘insane’ is outdated
