HideShow resource information
  • Created by: rianna
  • Created on: 13-12-12 11:06
View mindmap
  • Insanity
    • General defence formulated in 1843 and is governed by the m'naghten rules
    • M'Naghten case
      • Defendant was a paranoid  schizophrenic attempted  to kill pm but killed secretary
      • Found not guilty due to his mental state
      • uproar- hospitalisationin broadmoor nothing to do with verdict meaning he could be set free
      • HOL were asked to clarify the defence of insanity which led to the M'Nahgten rules
      • Only persuasive however it has been seen as authority since 1843
    • The rules, need all 5 rules or defense will fail
      • juries ought to be told that in all cases every man is presumed to be sane
      • must prove he was suffering from defect of reason
      • or from a defect of reason
      • meaning D did not know nature and quality of the act
      • or he did not know what he was doing was wrong
    • Defect of reason
      • D's powers of reasoning must have been impaired
      • If D was culpable of reasoning but failed to use his powers, this will surfise
      • The DOR must amount to more than absent-mindedness or confusion
      • Clarke - Mincemeat defined DOR TJ said case amounted to insanity therefore  D pleaded guilty
        • COA quashed the conviction D was not insane but lacked mens rea found NG. No DOR just a failure to use powers of reasining
    • Disease of the mind
      • can be mental disease (sleepwalking) or physical (brain tumour)which affects the mind
      • various conditions included making defense very wide but no-one wants the label
      • epilepsy diabetes and sleepwalking  shouldn't be labelled as insanity out of date with the medical world
      • Kemp-arteriosclerosis D admitted defect of reason not due to DOM as it was physical illness D NGRI but appealed
        • COA upheld  insanity Devlin J- srgues law is not concerned with the brain but with the mind, whether condition is curable or not transitory or permanent
    • The tests
      • Caused by DoM=Insanity internal factor
      • No DoM= automatism external factor
      • CDT- the more likely a condition is to recur in violence then this is insanity
        • Bratty- Stockings HOL upheld special verdict epilepsy is DoM Lord Denning approved Kemp
          • Charlson-Rat  D was suffering from brain tumour held physical disease so jury acquitted allowing automatism Lord Denning disagreed stated wrongly decided
            • Sullivan- Mr Payne TJ ruled epilepsy is insanity D pleaded guilty to avoid label then appealed COA&HOL upheld convictions and rejected appeals
      • ECT- issues stemming from  psychological or emotional factors rather that an external matter is insanity
    • Application of the law
      • epilepsy diabetes sleepwalking dissociation considered insanity but QSH pleaded guilty to avoid label
        • out of date with the medical world as large proportion of UK would be considered insane
      • Hennessy-TWOC. Cause of episode was diabetes internal therefore insanity. COA upheld conviction
      • Quick-nurse cause of his episode was the external drugs he had taken thus automatism
    • Sleepwalking
      • was once deemed automatism however reliance on ECT meant this condition is insanity
      • Burgess-wine murder D pleaded automatism based upon sleepwalking however its an internal disorder therefore insanity
      • Parks- in laws D was aquitted under automatism supreme court upheld this, the cause was natural condition of sleep
    • Dissociation (PST)
      • Causes D to act in a trance like state usually caused by extraordinary  events or overwhelming emotion
      • induced by ordinary stresses of life=insanity extraordinary events and stress= automatism
      • ordinary stress-Rabey geology student. D charged with GBH but pleaded guilty under automatism COA ordinary stresses of life is not an external cause. Appeal court ordered retrial
      • Extraordinary stress Falconer V abused girls D killed him held NG under automatism
        • R V T **** and robbery D allowed automatism as was subject of extraordinary stress TJ left it for jury to decide but jury rejected it
      • Burgess- wine murderer courts held  disappointment and frustration for unrequited love can't be equated to  concussion hence insanity
    • Nature&Quality
      • D muat not know N&Q of act as a result of DoR D must be unaware of what he is doing
      • Kemp  unconscious due to arteriosclerosis Burgess asleep hence unaware
      • Bell- Butlins told by God G sine knew actions.
      • Johnson schizo stabbed v G since he knew his actions
      • Windle- suicidal wife D was also suffering from insanity his words indicated he knew his actions were legally wrong he lacked DoR even though he had a DoM
    • Procedure
      • The verdict where insanity succeeds D will be NGRI known as special verdict  before 1991 this meant mandatory hospital
      • Burden of proof D must produce medical evidence sometimes D will not raise defence but leave it up to the court
      • Exclusion insanity is not open to all crimes and not available to SL


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »