Evaluation - insanity Flashcards
What sets out the rules for insanity?
Whats the main rule?
whats the legal definition?
when were the Mcnaughten rules established?
what is insane automatism?
whats non insane automatism? case?
The McNaughten rules set out the rules for insanity. The main rule is that in all cases every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be reasonable for his crimes. The legal definition is that the defendant must be labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing ‘what was wrong’. It should be noted that the McNaughten rules were established in 1843, before Diminished Responsibility 1957. Insane automatism is where a person experiences a complete loss of control over their actions due to a mental disorder or disease. Non insane automatism is when a person loses control over their actions due to an external factor like sleepwalking without any underlying mental disorder (Tilbury sleepwalking case, 1992).
whats the first element of insanity?
what does this mean?
case?
what did the court of appeal say?
defect of reason.
defendant’s power of reasoning must be impaired. In R v Clarke, the defendant was accused of shoplifting. She said she was suffering from absent mindedness. The court of appeal said this does not amount to insanity. It was held that the defect of reason must be more than absent mindedness or confusion.
whats the second element of insanity?
what can the disease be?
case?
does epilepsy come within insanity - case?
disease of the mind - legal term and not a medical one.
disease can be a mental or physical disease which affects the mind. It’s an internal cause that leads to the defect of reason.
R v Kemp, the defendant was suffering from hardening of the arteries that caused a temporary loss of consciousness. He attacked his wife with a hammer causing her serious injury. He admitted he was suffering from a defect of reason.
R v Sullivan, the house of Lords was asked to decide whether epilepsy came within the rules of insanity. The lords ruled that the source of the disease was irrelevant. The disease can be any part of the body if it affects the mind.
Can diabetes be classed as reason of insanity - case?
sleepwalking - case?
Diabetes can also be classed as insanity. In the case of Hennesy, the defendant failed to take his insulin for 3 days where he stole a car. The court of appeal held that the correct defence was insanity as the disease of diabetes was affecting his mind and therefore brought in the definition of insanity.
Burgess, sleepwalking was within the legal definition of insanity. There was no evidence of any external cause for the sleepwalking, but it was due to an internal cause – a sleep disorder. The judge ruled that this was evidence of insanity, and the defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
when does it not constitute insanity?
case?
what did the court of appeal say?
voluntary intoxication? case?
external factor rather than a disease.
R v Quick, the defendant was a diabetic who had taken his normal insulin dose but then had eaten insufficient food and claimed his aggression was a result of low blood sugar. The court of appeal ruled that his condition did not come under the definition of insanity.
could rely on the defence of automatism, and he was acquitted.
defendant becomes voluntarily intoxicated that causes a temporary psychotic episode, the defendant cannot rely on the defence of insanity due to it being an external factor – R v Coley.
whats the third element of insanity?
what are the 2 ways in which the defendant may not know the nature and quality of their act?
defendant did not know the nature or quality of the act or that it was legally wrong.
they’re in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness or they’re conscious but due to their mental condition they do not understand or know what they’re doing e.g. a nurse throwing a baby onto fire believing it to be a piece of wood.
R v Oye, the defendant believed the police had demonic face and were agents of evil spirits. It was held that the defendant had a psychotic episode that he had not known he was doing and what he was doing was wrong.
can they still rely on the defence if he knows the nature and quality of his act?
case?
whats a problem with this case? when was it followed?
still rely on insanity as a defence if he does not know what he did was legally wrong. This is so that even if the defendant is suffering from a mental illness as shown in Windle.
In this case the defendants wife spoke of suicide and so the defendant killed her by giving her 100 aspirins. He gave himself up at which point he said ‘i suppose they will hang me for this’. He was suffering from a mental illness but those words showed he knew what had done was legally wrong.
This case was in 1952 and Diminished Responsibility did not exist. This case was then followed in Johnson in 2007. The defendant was suffering from schizophrenia and paranoid delusions. However, he knew what he was doing and that it was legally wrong. The defence of insantiy was not available.
