Insanity + Automatism

Question 1

UtP + internal v external

Answer 1

Unfit to plea = 2 doctors needed to certify

Internal = insanity [sleepwalking, epilepsy, hyperglycaemic diabetes] vs external = sane automatism [concussion, hypoglycaemic diabetes from insulin]

Question 2

Insanity
Rules

Answer 2

• DPP v Harper = insanity is not available for strict liability offences
• Loake v CPS = the defence is about denials of responsibility, not just MR
• Special verdict = ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ – per s.2 Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 and as amended by the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 = it is not a conviction, but also not an acquittal
• M’Naghten = attempted assassination, medical evidence of his delusions convinced the jury that he was not guilty
  = M’Naghten Rules: a disease of the mind, a defect of reason, D did not know what they were doing as to the nature and quality of the act but also that it was legally wrong, D bears the burden of proof to prove insanity

Question 3

Insanity
Disease of the mind

Answer 3

• R v Sullivan = epilepsy [D would rather plead guilty to ABH than be labelled insane]
• R v Kemp = a disease of the body that impacts the mind is enough
• R v Burgess = sleepwalking + CoA recognised that the law regarding insanity does not have to match a psychiatrist’s definition
• R v Hennessey = diabetes case – hyperglycaemic case are cases of insanity
• Smith = PMS
• R v Keal = D must prove that he did not know the nature and quality of his acts or that he did not know that they were both unlawful and morally wrong [followed in R v Jan Usman]

Question 4

Automatism
Definition

Answer 4

• denying the capacity for voluntary action
• Definition = Bratty = automatism is “an action without any knowledge of acting, or action with no consciousness of doing what was being done.” = it is a greater level of mental incapacity and is external
• Hill v Baxter = if it is likely to reoccur then it is insanity

Question 5

Elements of automatism

Answer 5

1. Complete loss of voluntary control
2. Caused by an external factor
3. Not self induced
   - Verdict is outright acquittal
   - Burden of proof on the prosecution to disprove automatism
   - No strict requirement to provide medical evidence but in practice plea cannot operate without

Question 6

Automatism
Complete loss of voluntary control

Answer 6

• Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) = it was held that driving without awareness did not involve total destruction of voluntary control
• This was upheld in McGhee as automatism requires a wholly involuntary act

Question 7

Automatism
Caused by an external factor

Answer 7

• R v T = T commited a robbery, found to have been raped and had PTSD, so this was a case of automatism as rape was an external factor [jury convicted anyway]
• Rabey v The Queen = ordinary stresses of life do not constitute external causes, it must be a psychological blow, in this case unrequited love
• NOT internal causes = Hennessey [hyperglycaemic]

Question 8

Automatism
Not self-induced

Answer 8

• R v Bailey = hypoglycaemic diabetes case – not eaten food after taking insulin, on the facts the conviction was upheld, but on principle, it was external so a case of automatism
• R v Hardie = self-administered Valium, but D had taken drugs which do not normally produce unpredictability or aggression, D and the public did not know this, then they will not be at fault, so not self-induced

Question 9

Essay Questions
Advantages and Disadvanatges of Insanity and Automatism

Answer 9

• stigma around insanity
• phycological and legal defintion of insanity do not match up
• The internal/external cause distinction makes no sense
• Potentially leads to inadequate public protection = those who plead automatism may do what they did, may do it again [vs. a rare issue] + complete acquital for automatism
• underused defence in comparison to many with mental helath issues in prison
• wrong for burden of proof on defendent, it should be on P to prove sanity

Question 10

Insanity
What is NOT a disease of the mind

Answer 10

• R v Quick = hypoglycaemic case, taken insulin but did not eat, so automatism, as taken a drug
• R v Clarke = it is not enough for a defect of reason or momentary absence
• Awareness of a wrong = R v Windle + R v Johnson [schizophrenia]
  + Suffcliffe [murdered sex workers as told by God] = if D knew it was legally wrong, no insanity plea available