insanity Flashcards
mental capacity defence
verdicts
for the case of murder the must make a hospital order restricting the Ds discharge indefinitely
rules of insanity are based on…
M’Naghten - D suffered from extreme paranoia and thought he was being persecuted by the ‘‘tories’’ so tried to kill an MP but ended up killing his secretary.
Because of his mental state he was found not guilty of murder
HofL set out three key elements:
> defect of reason
must be a result of disease of the mind
causes D to not know the nature and quality of his act or as not know what he was doing was wrong
Defect of reason (mens rea)
means that Ds powers of reasoning must be impaired if D is capable of reasoning but failed to use those powers, then this is not a defect of reason
R v Clarke
D accidentally shoplifted , she claimed she had no recollection of putting the items in her bag and neither her or her husband wanted the items.
rules of insanity don’t apply to people who have moments of confusion or absent mindedness. Also, only applied to someone who is deprived of the powers or reasoning due to a disease of the mind
disease of the mind
legal term, not a medical one
can be a mental disease or a physical disease which affects the mind
R v Kemp
D suffered from hardening arteries this interfered with blood supply o his brain and caused temporary losses of consciousness. H attacked his wife with a hammer
law not concerned with the brain but the mind, his ordinary mental facilities of reason , memory and understanding had been affected - insanity
R v Sullivan
D suffered from epilepsy since childhood. He injured an 80year old man during a visit to neighbours flat.
CofA- source of disease was irrelevant and it didn’t matter whether the impairment was ‘permanent transient and intermittent’ provided it existed at the time which the D did act
high levels of sugar for diabetic patients can amount to insanity in certain cases
R v Hennessy- Diabetic who hadn’t take insulin in 3 days, could use defence of insanity as the diabetes was affecting his mind
R v Burgess
D attacked is girlfriend in his sleep due town external cause - sleep disorder
found not guilty reason of insanity
Not knowing the nature and quality of the act
'’nature and quality’’ merely refers to the physical quality of the act. this means that the D must prove any of the following:
> did not know what he was doing
>didn’t appreciate the consequences
>didn’t appreciate the circumstances
R v Oye
D believed the police had demonic faces and agents of evil, when being arrested he threw crockery at them and broke a police officers nose.
He had a psychotic episode and didn’t know what he was doing
NGRI
R v Windle
Ds wife constantly spoke of committing suicide so he killed her by giving her 100 aspirins.
He said to the police ‘’ I suppose they will hang me for this’’
these words showed he knew what he did was illegally wrong
could not use defence
R v Johnson
despite having paranoid Sz he knew the nature and wallet of his acts, and that they were legally wrong
defence not available
