MC Defence Insane Automatism Flashcards
(11 cards)
What are the Mnaughten rules
Defendant must 1 be suffering from a defect of reason 2 resulting from a disease of the mind 3 which caused them to not understand the nature and quality of the act or that what they did was wrong
What does Loake V DPP illustrate
Insanity can be a defence to strict liability offences
Describe defect of reason and give a case
Defendants powers of reasoning MUST be impaired. If defendant could have used rational thinking but chose not to the defence is not available. R v Clarke - must be more than absent mindedness
Describe disease of the mind and give a case
Defined legally not medically. Can be a physical or mental condition as long as it affects the mind. R v Kemp - physical condition
R v Sullivan outcome
1Epilepsy was a disease of the mind 2 source of disease is irrelevant ’can be or organic or functional’
Explain organic and functional insanity
Organic: brain has been damaged physically or by degenerative disease
Functional: no organic reason for brain damage
What was the outcome of R V Hennessy
1Diabetes can be a disease of the mind 2disease can be of any part of the body as long as it affects the mind
R v burgess
Sleep walking can amount to insanity
What factors need to be satisfied for Not knowing nature and quality of the act
•Defendant was unconscious or had impaired consciousness OR •Defendant was conscious but did not understand or know that what they were doing
Case where defendant did not know the nature and quality of their act
R v oye thought police were evil spirits so did not understand that what he was doing was wrong
What is meant by not understanding what they’re doing is wrong
If defendant knows what they’re doing they still satisfy the rule as long as they didn’t understand or know that their conduct was ‘wrong’. Wrong is meant in the legal sense not the moral sense. If defendant knows they were legally wrong they can’t use the defence. R v Windle Defendant knew that his actions were wrong as he said ‘I suppose they’ll hang me for this’ so his defence failed. R v Johnson upheld this decision
