Insanity and Automatism Flashcards
(23 cards)
What is the difference between insanity and automatism?
- Insanity is a result of internal causes
- Automatism is a result of external causes
How is insanity determined?
- Through the application of the M’Naghton rules
What are the M’Naghton rules?
- At the time of committing the act
- A defect of reason
- Disease of the mind
- Not to know the nature and quality of the act, of if he did, not know what he was doing was wrong
Case: The effect of insanity
- Loake [2017]
- Court has access to a range of orders it can impose, including a restricted or unrestricted hispital order, supervision order or absolute discharge
- Used to be mandatory detention in a mental institution
Case: Does insanity apply where the defendant believed he had no choice?
- R v Keal [2022]
- Does not apply, if the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong then he cannot access this defence
Case: Sleepwalking
- Burgess [1991]
- Tried to access automatism defence, was clarified that the “defect of the mind” that led to the act was internal, not external
Case: Temporary failute to concentrate
- Clarke (1972)
- Insanity does not apply, defendant retained ordinary powers of reason
Hill v Baxter [1958]
- Complete loss of consciousness required for automatism
- Temporary blackout does not qualify
Case: How is “mind” defined?
- Sullivan [1984]
- “Mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding”
Case: Clarifying the internal requirement for insanity
- Sullivan [1984]
- Nature of the disease, physical or psychological, was irrelevant provided it affected the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding at the time of the offence
Case: Diabetes: Hennessy
- Hennessy (1989)
- D had not been taking his insulin, and stole a car
- Insanity was the appropriate defence. The internal factor of the diabetes was the cause of his behaviour, not the injection of insulin
- Distinguished in Quick
Case: Defendant doesn’t know the nature and quality of their act
- Loake [2017]
- Confirmed the insanity defence where the defendant did not know the nature and quality of their act
Case: Didn’t know what he was doing was wrong
- Windle (1952)
- “wrong” means contrary to law; knowing legality defeats insanity
Case: Standard of wrongness
- Codere (1917)
- Apply “reasonable person” standard to determine wrongness
Case: Does a finding of insanity apply to strict liability offences?
- Harper [1997]
- Defence is based on absence of mens rea, none is required for strict liability offences
Case: Insanity and self-defence
- M’Naghten
- If, under the influence of a delusion, D kills someone in belief it is self defence, he would qualify for insanity
Case: Intoxication and insanity
- Davis (1881)
- Established the difference between drunkenness and diseases brought on by it
- Temporary drunkeness does not qualify, diseases do
What is the core difference in the construction of insanity vs automatism?
- Denial of AR as well as MR
Journal: Automatism as a denial of AR as well as MR
- H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and responsibility (2008)
- “Not subordinated by the agent’s conscious plans of action”
Case: Evidential burden in Automatism
- Bratty [1963]
- The crown is entitled to rely on the presumption that every man has sufficient mental capacity for criminal responsibility
- The defence must provide evidence “from which the contrary is reasonably inferred”
Case: “No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily”
- Bratty [1963]
Case: “actions purely automatic and his mind had no control over the movement of his limbs”
- Charlson (1955)
Case: Quick [1973]
- Not caused by the diabetes, but the use of the prescribed insulin
- Malfunctioning was caused by external factor and not bodily disorder
