DEFENCES: INSANITY
- Created by: pwatkins05
- Created on: 27-10-21 13:12
View mindmap
- INSANITY
- M'Naghten Rules
- 1. 'defect of reason' (MR)
- R v Clarke 1972
- being deprived of power to reason
- does not include confusion
- 2. 'disease of mind' (AR)
- must be supported by medical evidence
- must be caused by internal factor existing at time of act
- R v Kemp 1957
- 3. 'did not know the nature and quality of act' (AR)
- may be due to state of unconsciousness or lack of understanding or awareness due to medical condidtion
- 4. 'or if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong' (MR)
- defence will fail if D understood their actions were legally wrong
- does not mean morally wrong- R v Windle 1952 & R v Johnson 2007
- defence will fail if D understood their actions were legally wrong
- 1. 'defect of reason' (MR)
- definition: 'The D must prove that at the time of the offence he was labouring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong'
- Insanity Verdict
- 'not guilty, by reason of insanity' amounts to an aquittal
- for murder, sentencing is indefinite hospitalisation
- all other offences disposal options: hospital order, supervision order, or absolute discharge
- KEY CASES
- M'Naghten 1843
- judges formulated test for insanity based off of case
- Quick 1973
- disease of the mind- this was external: the insulin
- Hennessy 1989
- disease of mind- this was internal: the diabetes
- Burgess 1991
- sleepwalking is an internal factor, therefore insanity
- M'Naghten 1843
- M'Naghten Rules
Comments
No comments have yet been made