Defences 1

Question 1

What is the presumption in relation to capacity and criminal offences

Answer 1

All ppl are presumed to have the appropriate capacity to commit a criminal offence and be held accountable for their actions.

Question 2

When can insanity be invoked and what statute governs it

Answer 2

Suffering from mental disorder

MAy be raised as a defence at any criminal trial

Crimunal law insanity act 2006 governs it

Question 3

What section governs fitness to be tried

Answer 3

Section 4 of the 2006 act

Question 4

What does fitness to be tried mean

Answer 4

Accused person cant be tried if they are not fit to plead as this would breach their constiutional rights

Concerned with the accuseds mental capacity at the time of trial and not the time of the comission of the offence

Question 5

What was the traditional approach to fitness to plead
State the case

Answer 5

C v Minister for Justice

Whether the person had sufficient intellect to comprehend the proceedings of the trial

Question 6

What does section 4 of the 2006 Act say

Answer 6

An accused is unfit if, because of their mental condition, they cannot:

Understand the charge and enter a plea.

Give instructions to their lawyer.

Choose jury trial (for certain offences).

Make a proper defence.

Challenge jurors in a jury trial.

Understand the evidence.

👉 In short: If the accused cannot follow the trial or defend themselves properly because of mental disorder, they are considered unfit to stand trial.

Question 7

What are important things to note about defence under s 4

Answer 7

The defence doesnt relate to the guilt or innocence of the oerson

Anyone can raise the defence

Question 8

What happens if a person is found to be unfit to be tried

Answer 8

If the person is found unfit to be tried, then the proceedings will be adjourned and court will determine how the perrson should be dealth w until they recover or if they ever recover

Question 9

what section governs the defence of insanity

Answer 9

Section 5 of the 2006 act

Question 10

Section 5 of the 2006 act

Answer 10

Provides for a verict of ot guilty by reason of insanity

At the time of the offence, if the accused was:

Suffering from a mental disorder, and

That disorder meant they either:

didn’t understand what they were doing (nature/quality of the act), or

didn’t know it was wrong, or

couldn’t stop themselves from doing it,

Question 11

How is mental disorder defined as by s1 of 2006 act

Answer 11

Mental illness/mental disability/dementia or any disease of the minf that does not include intoxication

Question 12

The burden of proof in relation to insanity

Answer 12

If defence wish to raise it, must prive on balance of probability and then burden shift to prosecution to disprobe beyond reasonable dount

Presumtpion of sanity unless proven otherwise

Question 13

Whats the main difference between unfitness to plead and insanity

Answer 13

Unfitness to plead relaties to the accused state of mind at the time of trial

Insnaity looks at the accuseds state of mind at the time of tje comission of the offence
Doesnt matter if they are insane or not at trial

Question 14

What 2 cases lay out the rules of insnaity in irish law

Answer 14

M’Naughten- the m’naughton rules

AG v Hayes- irresistable impulse

Question 15

What happened in the case of mnaughton

Answer 15

Facts:

M’Naughten suffered from paranoid delusions, believing the Tory Party was persecuting him.

He tried to assassinate the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, but mistakenly shot and killed Peel’s secretary, Edward Drummond.

At trial, doctors testified he was insane.

Holding (M’Naughten Rules):

Everyone is presumed sane, but this presumption can be overturned (on the balance of probabilities).

To succeed with insanity, the accused must show:

a “disease of the mind” caused a defect of reason, and

he did not know the nature and quality of the act, or

if he did, he did not know it was wrong/unlawful.

If the accused suffers from a delusion, the law treats the situation as if the delusion were real.

If someone knows their act is unlawful despite a delusion, they cannot rely on insanity.

👉 Outcome: M’Naughten was found not guilty by reason of insanity and acquitted, establishing the M’Naughten Rules as the test for insanity.

Presumption of sanity – Every person is presumed sane until proven otherwise.

Disease of the mind – To prove insanity, the accused must show they were suffering from a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind.

Not knowing nature/quality or wrongness – Because of this defect, the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act, or if they did, they did not know it was wrong/unlawful.

Delusions treated as real – If the accused acted under a delusion, they are judged as if the situation were real as they perceived it.

Question 16

According to m’naughten rules, what must a defendant show

Answer 16

(i) He or she was suffering from a defect of reason;

(ii) Arising from a disease of the mind;

(iii) Such that he or she did not know the nature and quality of his or her actions;

(iv) Or, if he or she did know, that he or she did not know that they were wrong, i.e.
contrary to the law.

Question 17

Is mnaughten rules the primary test for insnaity? What cases

Answer 17

No, they are not the sole and exclusibe test
AG v O’Brien

Doyle v Wiclow CC

Question 18

what are key concepts in relaiton to insnaity

Answer 18

1. Disease of mind
2. Defect of reason
   a) Nature and quality fo the act
   b)Wrongfulness of the act
3. Irresistable impulse

Question 19

What does disease of the midn mean

Answer 19

It doesnt need to mean disease of the brain, can be defined as the malfunctioning of he mind caused by a disease

Question 20

What are the cases on disease of the mind

Answer 20

R v Burgess

R v Kemp

R v Hennessy

Bratty v Ag for NI

R v Sullivan

Question 21

R v Burgess

Answer 21

Sleepwalking can constiute disease of the mind

Question 22

R v Kemp

Answer 22

Facts:

Kemp suffered from arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), which caused temporary unconsciousness.

While unconscious, he attacked his wife with a hammer, causing serious harm.

The prosecution argued this was not insanity, since his brain cells were not damaged – only blood flow was interrupted.

Holding:

The court held that arteriosclerosis can amount to a “disease of the mind” for the purposes of the insanity defence.

Disease of the mind = any condition that impairs reasoning, memory, or understanding, regardless of:

whether it is brain-based or not,

its origin, or

whether it is curable or incurable.

👉 Key takeaway: Insanity doesn’t require brain damage — any internal condition impairing mental faculties qualifies.

Question 23

R v Hennessy

Answer 23

Facts:

Hennessy was a diabetic.

He failed to take insulin and suffered hyperglycemia (high blood sugar).

This caused impaired awareness, and he committed an offence while in this state.

The question: was this insanity or automatism?

Holding:

The court held it was insanity.

Reason: hyperglycemia is caused by the internal condition of diabetes (a disease of the body affecting the mind).

If the disease causes a malfunction of the mind, it qualifies as a “disease of the mind” under the M’Naughten rules.

👉 Key takeaway:

Internal causes (like diabetes itself) → Insanity.

External causes (like taking too much insulin = hypoglycemia) → Automatism.

Question 24

Bratty v Ag

Answer 24

Facts:

Bratty strangled a girl with a stocking.

He claimed he experienced a “blackout” and didn’t know what he was doing.

Medical evidence suggested he might have had psychomotor epilepsy, which can cause violent episodes.

Holding (Lord Denning):

Any mental disorder that:

manifests in violence, and

is prone to recur,
counts as a “disease of the mind” under the M’Naughten rules.

Such conditions fall under insanity, not automatism.

Reason: someone with such a disorder should be detained in hospital, not released with an outright acquittal.

👉 Key takeaway: Epilepsy (when linked to violent blackouts) = insanity defence, not automatism.

Question 25

R v Sulliban

Answer 25

Suffered an epileptic fit and attacked an 80 year olf man Held: Eilepsy being an intenal factor gave rise to insanity The temporary nature of the mental suspension does not matter if the condition is recurrent. Application of the M’Naughten Rules focuses on whether the mind was impaired, not how long the impairment lasted.

Question 26

What is a short summary of what to ask to determine whether somehting is a disease of mind under mnaughten rules

Answer 26

a) Is the disease a mental disorder that has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur? Does the disease impair the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding? Does the disease cause a malfunctioning of the mind?

Question 27

What does defect of reason mean What are the 2 forms

Answer 27

Disease of mind must cause a defect of reason 1. Unaware of the nature and the quality of the act 2. Knows the nature and quality fo the act, but doesnt know that it is wromg

Question 28

What are the cases on the nature and quality fo the acyt

Answer 28

R v Codere R v Dickie AG v HAyes

Question 29

R v Codere

Answer 29

Nature and quality of the act refers to the physical characted r of the act and no the legal or moral character A person may know the nature and quality without knowing the probable consequences of the act

Question 30

R v Dickie

Answer 30

Accused had set fre to a wastepaper basket Medical evidence showed that bevase of psychosis he didnt appreicate the danger ingerent in the act Held: He knew he was setting fire to the bin His lack of appreciation to the danger involved didnt matter

Question 31

AG v Hayes (IRELAND)

Answer 31

May be less strict Understanding’ the nature and quality of an act may include an appreciation of the consequences or probable consequences of an act.

Question 32

What bdoes the wrongfulness of the act mean

Answer 32

where the accused knows that his or her actions are wrong or unlawful, the defence of insanity will fail. [I] f the accused was conscious that the act done was one which he ought not do and that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.”

Question 33

What are the cases on wrongfullness of the act

Answer 33

R v Windle R v Stapleton AG v HAyes

Question 34

R v Windle

Answer 34

Facts: The appellant killed his wife by giving her 100 aspirin. His wife had repeatedly talked about suicide, and he was obsessed with this. A doctor testified he suffered from “communicated insanity” from assisting his wife. Upon arrest, he said: “I suppose I’ll be hanged for this.” Holding (Lord Goddard, C.J.): “Wrong” under M’Naughten means contrary to the law. Because the appellant knew his act was illegal, he could not rely on the insanity defence. Key takeaway: Awareness that an act is illegal defeats the M’Naughten insanity defence, even if there is some mental disorder.

Question 35

R v Stapletpom

Answer 35

Wrong meant wromg accofrding to the standards of reasonable men

Question 36

AG v HAyes

Answer 36

wrong meant both immoralitu and illegality

Question 37

What does irresistable impulse mean

Answer 37

Irresistible Impulse occurs if a person knows the nature and quality of the act and also knows that it is wrong, but is unable to refrain from committing the act. I

Question 38

Cases on irresitable impulse

Answer 38

Doyle v Wicklow CC DPP v Courtney

Question 39

Doyle v Wicklow CC

Answer 39

Facts: A 17-year-old set fire to an abattoir. The plaintiff sought compensation, which required proving the act was a crime. Medical evidence showed the youth suffered from a mental disorder. If the youth was insane, no crime was committed, so no compensation. Holding: M’Naughten rules are not the only test for sanity. Even if a person knows the act’s nature and wrongfulness, mental illness may prevent free volition, meaning they could be incapable of refraining from the act. Courts can consider whether a mental disorder impaired the ability to control one’s actions, not just knowledge of right/wrong. Key takeaway: Knowledge of wrongfulness is not always sufficient; lack of control due to mental illness can also affect criminal liability.

Question 40

DPP v Courtney

Answer 40

For insanity based on impulse, the impulse must be truly irresistible. Simply having weakened self-control or finding it hard to resist is not enough—the person must be unable to resist at all.

Question 41

What are the recent cases on the defence of insanity/perverse verdicts and miscarriages of justice

Answer 41

DPP v Alchimionek DPP v Tomkins DPP v Abdi

Question 42

DPP v Alchimionek

Answer 42

Facts: Appellant drove into oncoming traffic, causing the death of John Gorman and injuring Adam Gorman. Defence argued he was insane at the time (special verdict: not guilty by reason of insanity). Psychiatric evidence from Dr. Monks (for defence) and Dr. Mullaney (for prosecution) confirmed a serious mental disorder (schizophrenia/psychotic depression). Trial judge told the jury that the evidence supported the defence of insanity and that the jury was obliged to consider it. Jury returned a majority guilty verdict (11:1). Appeal: Appellant claimed the verdict was perverse and against the weight of the evidence. Court emphasized: Jury has primacy in assessing evidence of insanity. Appellate courts rarely quash verdicts as perverse unless clearly unsupported by any evidence. Court found the verdict unsupported by evidence (insanity was clearly established) → guilty verdict quashed.

Question 43

DPP v Tomkins

Answer 43

Jury Verdicts and Appellate Review Perverse Verdicts Are Rare Appellate courts rarely quash jury verdicts as perverse. This reflects the primacy of the jury in criminal trials. Appellate Courts Don’t Reassess Evidence Generally, appellate courts cannot substitute their own view for the jury’s assessment of evidence. When a Case Might Be Withdrawn from Jury If evidence clearly cannot support a conviction, the trial judge may withdraw the case from the jury. If the jury still considers it, usually it’s because a properly instructed jury could reasonably return a guilty verdict. DPP v Alchimionek Outcome Jury returned a guilty verdict despite clear psychiatric evidence of insanity. Court of Appeal found the verdict unsupported by evidence and perverse → quashed the guilty verdict.

Question 44

DPP v Abdi

Answer 44

Background: Conviction in 2003 for murder of his son. Jury rejected the defence of insanity at the original trial. New Evidence: In 2013, the accused was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. This diagnosis was considered a “newly discovered fact.” Court of Appeal Decision: Conviction quashed. A retrial was ordered. Reason: the new evidence meant the original trial might have been unsatisfactory and could have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Newly discovered psychiatric evidence can justify quashing a verdict if it affects the insanity defence and raises the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

Question 45

When would the defence of automatism be the appropriate defence rather than insnaity

Answer 45

If the mind is caused to malfunction by an external factor rather than an internal factor

Question 46

What case defines automatism

Answer 46

Bratty v AG

Question 47

Bratty v Ag

Answer 47

An act done by the muscles without control of the mind like a spasm/reflex action/sleepwalking The action is involuntary

Question 48

What happens if the dfense of automatism is successful and why

Answer 48

Entiteled to an acquiral beause mens rea requires the act to be voluntary

Question 49

What is the standard of proof in relation to automatism

Answer 49

Accused bears evidential burden of showing foundations of defence- no balance of probability Prosecution must disprive the defence beyond reasonable doubt

Question 50

What cases distinguishe between insane and non insane automatism

Answer 50

R v Rabey R v Falconer

Question 51

R v Rabey

Answer 51

Core Principle: Distinguishes between insanity and automatism: Insanity: Malfunctioning of the mind caused by an internal factor. Automatism: Malfunctioning caused by an external factor. Court’s Holding: Any internal mental disorder that prevents the accused from knowing their actions may count as a disease of the mind (insanity). Temporary disturbances caused by external factors (e.g., blow to the head, drugs, or other transient triggers) are automatism, not insanity.

Question 52

R v Falconer

Answer 52

If an automatic or involuntary state is caused by an internal factor (e.g., a disease, mental or physical condition), the proper defence is insanity. Reason: The internal factor is treated as a disease of the mind, not an external trigger.

Question 53

Is the consumption of drugs something under automatism what case

Answer 53

R v Lipman Where automatism is due to the consumption of drugs/alcohol, the appropriate defense is intoxication

Question 54

What is the threshold for the defence os automatism state case

Answer 54

O'Brien v PArker Very high threshold- strict limits Must be a total destriction of voluntary control on the defendants part Impaured/reduced/partial control is not sufficient

Question 55

Sumary of threshold of automatism

Answer 55

in order for the defence of automatism to apply: 1. A total destruction of voluntary control is required; 2. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not sufficient to maintain this defence; and 3. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not suffer a total destruction of voluntary control.

Question 56

What is the main factor between insnae and non insnae automatism

Answer 56

Non-insane- must eb an external catro Insanity- must eba n internal actor

Question 57

Cases on external factors

Answer 57

R v Quick R v Hennessyy R v Rabey

Question 58

R v Quick

Answer 58

Context: Accused was diabetic, took insulin, didn’t eat → hypoglycemia → attacked someone. Holding: Malfunction of mind caused by an external factor (insulin/medication) is not a disease of the mind. Defence: Non-insane automatism applies.

Question 59

R v Hennessy

Answer 59

Context: Accused diabetic, hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) → drove while disqualified. Holding: Hyperglycemia caused by internal defect (diabetes) = disease of the mind. Not caused by external factor like insulin (contrast with R v Quick). If disease affects mental faculties → insanity defence under M’Naughten Rules applies. Stress/Anxiety/Depression: Can result from external factors, but not sufficient alone for non-insane automatism unless truly caused externally.

Question 60

R v Rabey

Answer 60

Facts: Accused obsessed with a girl; after learning she rejected him, he entered a dissociative state and attacked her. Holding: Ordinary life stresses do not count as external causes for non-insane automatism. Only extraordinary external events (e.g., serious accidents, witnessing murder or assault, extreme threats) may be sufficient to ground non-insane automatism.