insanity

Question 1

m’naghten rules 1843

Answer 1

the d was suffering from a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind and d does not know the nature and or quality of the act or if he doesn’t know it, does not know its legally wrong

Question 2

1. d was suffering from a defect of reason

Answer 2

d power of reasoning were defective there was a total inability to reason a complete lack of awareness at the time of the offence ( r v clarke- needs to be more than absent mindedness and confusion)

Question 3

2. disease of the mind

Answer 3

the defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind
-legal term not a medical one
- disease can be mental or physical which affects the mind
(r v kemp- affected his memory reasoning and understanding)

Question 4

epilepsy case

Answer 4

r v sullivan

Question 5

diabetes case

Answer 5

r v hennessy

Question 6

sleepwalking case

Answer 6

r v burgess

Question 7

voluntary intoxication case

Answer 7

AG for NI v Gallagher

Question 8

3. not knowing the nature and quality of the act

Answer 8

they are unconscious or have impaired consciousness
OR
they are conscious but due to their mental condition they can not understand what they are doing

Question 9

D must know that he was legally wrong

Answer 9

if the d knows the nature and quality of the act and that it is legally wrong they can’t use the defence of insanity
( r v windle, r v johnson)

Question 10

the special verdict

Answer 10

where insanity succeeds d will be found not guilty by reason of insanity
this is the special verdict the judge can then impose
-a hospital order or
-a supervision order or
-an absolute discharge