Insanity
- 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- epilepsy diabetes and sleepwalking shouldn't be labelled as insanity out of date with the medical world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
- Charlson-Rat D was suffering from brain tumour held physical disease so jury acquitted allowing automatism Lord Denning disagreed stated wrongly decided
- Bratty- Stockings HOL upheld special verdict epilepsy is DoM Lord Denning approved Kemp
- 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
- epilepsy diabetes sleepwalking dissociation considered insanity but QSH pleaded guilty to avoid label
- 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
Comments
No comments have yet been made