Case Studies:Insanity 1
- Created by: Alex.Byrne
- Created on: 26-05-18 16:23
View mindmap
- Case Studies- Insanity 1:
- Unfitness to plead
- R v Pritchard (1836)
- D was deaf and mute
- Test to apply in deciding fitness to plead:
- Is the prisoner mute of malice or not
- Can he plead to the indictment or not
- Is he of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings in the trial as to make a proper defence
- To know that he might challenge anyone whom he may object
- Can he comprehend the details of the evidence, which in a case of this nature must constitute a minute investigation
- Criticisms of Unfitness to please- Results in exclusion
- R v Padola (1960)- loss of memory about events did not qualify
- R v Sharp (1957)- illiterate deaf mute who could communicate with the court was deemed unfit
- R v Pritchard (1836)
- 1. Must suffer from a defect of reason
- R v Clarke (1972)
- Mrs Clarke (58) absent-mindedly placed some items in her bag while shopping. She had no recollection of doing so
- Medical evidence: she was suffering with depression and was diabetic. Judge ruled that this raised defence of insanity
- Clarke changed plea to guilty and appealed against judge's finding of insanity
- Held: short periods of absent-mindedness fall short of amounting to defect of reason
- R v Clarke (1972)
- 2. Defect of reason must be caused by disease of the mind
- Sullivan (1984)- Epilepsy
- Hennessy (1989)- Diabetes
- Burgess (1991)- Sleepwalking
- R v Kemp (1957)
- Husband (usually good character) made motiveless and irrational violent attack on wife with hammer, causing GBH
- He suffered from hardening of the arteries which led to congestion of blood in the brain. Causes temporary lack of consciousness- he wasn't conscious he picked up hammer or striking wife
- Sought defence to raise automatism.
- Held: hardening of arteries was "disease of mind" within M'Naghten Rules and he could not use defence of automatism
- R v Quick (1973)
- Appellant charged with assault occasioning ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861
- Attacked a patient while on duty- paraplegic and suffered black eyes, fractured nose, bruising
- Sought to raise defence of automatism- at the time he was hypoglycemic (taken too much insulin and not eaten enough). Also consumed alcohol
- Appellant= charge nurse in hospital
- Judge: gave rise to insanity not automatism. D changed plea to guilty and appealed
- Held: appeal allowed and conviction quashed. Hypoglycemia caused by external factor of insulin not diabetes
- 3. Disease of mind must cause failure to know nature and quality of act OR D knew it was wrong
- Nature and Quality
- R v Codere (1916)
- Appellant convicted of murder. Sought to rely on defence of insanity, however at the time of the killing he knew it was unlawful to kill
- Held: not able to rely on defence of insanity
- R v Codere (1916)
- Did not know it was wrong
- Windle (1952)
- Nature and Quality
- Unfitness to plead
Comments
No comments have yet been made