Insanity Flashcards by USER 1

Where are the rules of insanity based on?

the M’Naghten Rules 1843

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What happened in the case of M’Naghten 1843?

They laboured under a defect of reason
Caused by a disease of the mind; so that either
He did not know the nature and quality of his acts, or that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

D suffered from extreme paranoia. Tried to kill a member of the government but instead killed security. D was found not guilty due to his mental state. The HOL formulated the M’Naghten rules, a person wishing to rely on the defence of insanity must show that:
-They laboured under a defect of reason
-Caused by a disease of the mind; so that either
-He did not know the nature and quality of his acts, or that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
What case is this?

M’Naghten 1843

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is the main rule created in the case of M’Naghten?

that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is the deffiniton of insanity?

D 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 is doing, or if he did know, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What are the 3 elements which need to be proved under insanity set by M’Naghten?

defect of reason
which myst be the result of a diseases of the mind
causing D not to know the nature and quality of his act or not to know he was wrong

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Who is the burden on of proving insanity?

on the defence

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

How must the defence prove insanity?

on the balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Where a defendant is found to be insane, what will the verdict be?

“not guilty by reason of insanity”

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

It used to be thought that insanity was a defence to all offences. However in which case was it held that insanity is not a defence to offences of strict liability where no mental element is required?

DPP v H

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What happened in the case of DPP v H?

D was charged with driving with excess alcohol, it was held however that insanity is not a defence to offences of strict liability

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

D was charged with driving with excess alcohol, it was held however that insanity is not a defence to offences of strict liability
What case is this?

DPP v H

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Why was D in DPP v H not allowed the defence of insanity when he was charged with driving with excess alcohol?

this is because insanity is not a defence to offences of strict liability where there is no mental element required

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is a defect of reason as stated in the M’Naghten rules?

This means that the defendants powers of reasoning must be impaired

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is not a defect of reason?

if D is capable of reasoning but has failed to use those powers

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

In which case was it held that the defect of reason must be more than absent-mindedness or confusion?

Clarke

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What happened in the case of Clarke?

D stole 3 items without paying. Charged with theft but claimed that she lacked mens rea as she suffered from absentmindedness caused by diabetes and depression. COA quashed conviction of insanity as ‘defect of reason’ in the M’Naghten Rules applies only to persons who reason by a disease of the mind; not someone who had suffered from moments of confusion and absentmindedness

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Clarke

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is a disease of the mind?

the defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind. This is the legal term, not a medical one. The disease can be a mental disease or a physic disease which affects the mind

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the disease of the mind can be a mental disease or a physical disease. What case is an example?

Kemp

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What happened in the case of Kemp?

D was suffering from hardening of the arteries which caused D to have moments of loss of consciousness. During this, D seriously injured his wife with a hammer. D suffered from a defect of reason as the blood to his brain was congested. COA upheld conviction of not guilty by reason of insanity as they were not concerned with the brain, only the mind.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

D was suffering from hardening of the arteries which caused D to have moments of loss of consciousness. During this, D seriously injured his wife with a hammer. D suffered from a defect of reason but not due to a disease of the mind as it was a physical illness. COA upheld conviction of not guilty by reason of insanity as they were not concerned with the brain, only the mind.
What case is this?

Kemp

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

in what case were the HOL asked to decide whether epilepsy came within the rules of insanity?

Sullivan

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What happened in the case of Sullivan?

D suffered from epilepsy, known to have fits. During a fit he injured an old man. Held that epilepsy is not caused by an external influence, but is rather an internal illness, which affects the mind, hence bringing it under the M’Naghten definition. It did not matter whether the impairment was permanent or transient, provided that it existed at he time at which D did the act

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Sullivan

What is the main point from the case of Sullivan?

that it did not matter whether the impairment was permanent provided that it existed at the time at which D did the act

What did the ruling in Sullivan regarding epilepsy mean for the purposes of the M'Naghten Rules?

that he disease can be of any part of the body provided it has an effect on the mind

In Hennessy what was classed as insanity?

high blood sugar levels because of diabetes as the levels affected the mind

What happened in the case of Hennessy?

D was a diabetic who had not taken insulin. Charged with taking a motor vehicle without consent and driving whilst unqualified. D claimed he had no recollection. COA held the correct defence was insanity not non-insane automatism as the disease of diabetes was affecting his mind.

Hennessy

What did the case of Hennessy bring into the deffiniton of insanity?

diabetes

What was held to be brought under insanity, in some instances, in the case of Burgess?

sleep walking

What happened in the case of Burgess?

D attacked his gf in his sleep. Doctor gave evidence that it was due to an internal cause, a sleep disorder. D found not guilty by reason of insanity.

D attacked his gf in his sleep. Doctor gave evidence that it was due to an internal cause, a sleep disorder. D found not guilty by reason of insanity. What case is this?

Burgess

When will sleep walking not be under the defence of insanity?

when the sleep walking is due to an external cause such as a blow to the head, it would be automatism

When will D not be given the defence of insanity?

when the cause of D being in a state of where he does not know what he is doing is not a disease but an external cause

What happened in the case of Quick?

D was a diabetic and had low blood sugar levels as he had not eaten enough which affected his brain. COA ruled that his condition did not come under insanity as it was caused by an external matter. D could only rely on the defence of automatism

Quick

The decisions in which 2 cases highlight the problems with the law?

Hennessy and Quick

What are the two states of diabetes?

- the disease itself which causes high levels of blood sugar | - the drug, insulin, which is used to control blood sugar. If D fails to eat the blood sugar level will become too low

In which case was D considered to come within the rules of insanity as it was an internal cause of diabetes?

Hennessy

In which case did the drug cause the automatic state which does not come within the rules of insanity but can rely on the defence of automatism?

Quick

In terms of intoxication, when can D not use the defence of insanity?

Where D voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance and this causes a temporary psychotic episode

Why is voluntary intoxication not a defence of insanity?

as it is an external factor

What case illustrates that voluntary intoxication does not come within the defence of insanity?

Coley

What happened in the case of Coley?

D was a regular cannabis user. Attacked V with a knife. Claimed he blacked out and had no recollection. Evidence that he suffered from a psychotic episode induced from cannabis. Convicted of attempted murder as the situation was one of voluntary intoxication caused by an external act.

Coley

What happened in the case of Harris which was dealt with by the COA at the same time as Coley?

D committed arson. He had been a heavy drinking but stopped days before the incident. This had caused alcohol-induced hallucinations. COA allowed appeal as he was not intoxicated at the time of the offence.

What does the nature and quality refer to?

to the physical character of the act

There are two ways in which the defendant may not know the nature and quality of the act, if D can show that either of these states applied to him at the time he did the act then he satisfies this part of the M'Naghten Rules, what are these?

- because he is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness - when he is conscious but due to his mental condition he does not understand or know what he is doing

What is a recent case of a defendant not knowing the nature ad quality of his act?

Oye

What happened in the case of Oye?

D threw crockery at the police. In custody he became aggressive and punched an officer. D believed police had demonic faces; it was held that D was having a psychotic episode and did not know what he was doing was wrong. Found not guilty by reason of insanity

Oye

Where D knows the nature and quality of the act he can still use the defence of insanity if he does not know what?

if he does not know what he did was wrong

What is the consequence if D knows the nature and faulty of the act and that it is legally wrong?

then he cannot use the defence of insanity even if he is suffering from a mental illness

If D knows the nature and faulty of the act and that it is legally wrong then he cannot use the defence of insanity even if he is suffering from a mental illness, which case illustrates this?

Windle

What happened in the case of Windle?

Ds wife constantly spoke of suicide. D killed her by giving her 100 aspirins. D suffered from a mental illness but his confession showed that he knew what he had done was legally wrong. He could not use defence of insanity, guilty of murder.

Windle

IN what case was the decision of WIndle followed recently?

Johnson

What happened in the case of Johnson?

D stabbed V. He was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and hallucinations. Despite this, D knew the nature and quality of his acts and that they were legally wrong. They followed decision in Windle. Court held that the word wrong meant knowing the act was contrary to the law

D stabbed V. He was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and hallucinations. Despite this, D knew the nature and quality of his acts and that they were legally wrong. They followed decision in Windle.Court held that the word wrong meant knowing the act was contrary to the law What case is this?

Johnson

What was the view of Australian courts which did not follow the case of Windle?

that if D believed his act to be right then he was entitled to be acquitted even if he knew it was legal wrong

What did the COA notice about the decision of Windle?

that it could create internal inconsistencies which arise from the application of the M'Naghten Rules

When a defendant successfully proves insanity the jury returns a verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity.' up to 1991 when then did the judge have to do?

the judge ad to send D to a mental hospital regardless of the cause of the insanity or the offence committed

What was a flaw in the law whereby pre-1991 the judge had to send D to a mental hospital gardless of the cause of the insanity or the offence committed?

as this was clearly not suitable for cases where D suffered from diabetes, epilepsy or hardening of the arteries

What Act was passed in 1991 which extended the options for the judge to now impose - a hospital order without restrictions - a supervision order - an absolute discharge

Criminal Procedure Act

What did the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 do?

this extended the options for the judge to now impose - a hospital order - a supervision order - an absolute discharge

If D is charged with murder and then found not guilty by reason of insanity what must the judge impose?

an indefinite hospital order

What does it mean by the fact that if D is charged with murder and then found not guilty by reason of insanity, the judge must impose an indefinite hospital order?

this means that the hospital can only realise the defendant from the hospital if the Home Secretary gives consent

What is the definition of insanity?

D must be labouring under a defect of reason from disease of the mind ad must either not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or not know what he was doing was wrong

What is a defect of reason?

Ds powers of reasoning must be impaired. Absentmindedness is not enough

What case comes under Defect of Reason which illustrates that absentmindedness is not enough?

Clarke

What is disease of the mind?

This is a legal term NOT a medical one. - Kemp There must be an internal cause- Sullivan It need not be permanent; it can be transient and intermittent- Quick -An eternal cause is not sufficient- Coley

Match the case to the element of law undertake deffiniton of the mind? * This is a legal term NOT a medical one. * There must be an internal cause * It need not be permanent; it can be transient and intermittent * An eternal cause is not sufficient

- Kemp - Sullivan - Quick - Coley

What does it mean by the fact that D must not know the nature and quality of act or not know what he is doing is wrong?

this means that D must not know it is legally wrong; if he does he cannot rely on the defence of insanity- Windle and Johnson

Which 2 cases illustrates that if D knows his act is legally wrong then he cannot rely on the defence of insanity?

Windle and Johnson

What is a special verdict?

this is where D can impose - a hospital order - superison order - avolsute discharge - guardianship order

Insanity Flashcards

(77 cards)