Insanity and Sane-Automatism

• General defence - can be applied to a range of different offences (not SL)
• also known as insane automatism
• Burden of proof is on party raising the defence
• standard of proof is a balance of probabilities 
• can be raised by D, P or the judge
• s1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 - if insanity is proven, the jury must return a special verdict
  • Special verdict = 'not guilty by reason of insanity'
• Insanity is governed by Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
  • The judge can hand down a variety of orders if D was found or pleaded insane:
    • If D committed murder, unlimited treatment and a hospital order is compulsory 
    • If D has committed any other offence, the judge can impose:
      • A hospital order
      • guardianship order
      • supervision and treatment order
      • absolute discharge
• Insanity is a common law offence (M'Naghten)

M'Naghten's Case (1843)

• D (thinking the tories were after him) tried to kill one, but actually killed a secretary
• D was not found guilty of murder, because of his mental state
• There would be public outcry if he got away with nothing, so had to go to a mental hospital
• HL: 'in all cases, every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes'

M'Naghten Rules

• Following this case, the judicial committee of HL were asked to clarify the law on insanity:
  • defect of reason
  • disease of the mind
  • unaware of nature and quality of act OR did not know the act was wrong

• D's ability to reason must be impaired.
• It is not a defect of reason if D is capable of reason, but simply fails to do so

Clarke (1972)

• D forgot to pay for some items she put in her bag in the supermarket
• Charged w/theft but D said she lacked intention to steal + had evidence she suffered from absent-mindedness
  • trial judge ruled this amounted to a plea of insanity
• Held: CA allowed appeal, as M'Naghten rules apply to people with a defect of reason, rather than those who retain their reasoning, who, in a moment of absent-mindedness, fail to use their powers to the full

Kopsch (1927)

• D killed his aunt, allegedly at her request and 'under the direction his his subconcious mind'
• Lord Hewart: uncontrollabgle impulses would not and should not be considered as a defect of reason

• Must be the cause of the defect of reason
• can be psychological or physical, but MUST be INTERNAL
• any disease causing a malfunctioning of the mnd is a disease of the mind - it doesn't need to be a disease of the brain itself

Hennessy (1989) - Diabetes

• D charged w/stealing car + driving while disqualified
• D was suffering from a hypERglycymic attack because he had NOT taken his insulin
• Trial judge: this was a disease of the mind, as mental state was caused by the disease of diabetes itself
• Appeal dismissed: D was suffering from a disease of the mind, as hyperglycemic state was caused by the internal factor of diabetes. It is not an external factor, such as medicine

Kemp (1957) - Heart Disease

• D hit his wife, causing her GBH. Medical evidence: D was suffering from heart disease, giving him temporary blackouts that made him act irrationally 
• Held: dispite there being a medical difference between mental diseases w/ a physical cause and those with a psychological cause, that distinction is irrelevent for law of insanity
  • heart disease affected D's mind, which caused a defect of reason

Epilepsy

• As internal factors are likely to recur, courts applied 'continuing danger' theory
• Any condition likely to create recurring danger to the puclic = insanity

Bratty 

• D killed V and blamed it on an epileptic fit, which trial judge believed amounted to insanity
• Appeal dismissed. Epileptic seizure -> insanity. 'any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind

Sullivan (1983)

• D injured V while having an epileptic fit
• Held: D = not guilty by reason of insanity, following Bratty

Sleep Walking (a condition doesn't have to be recurring for it to be insanity)

Burgess (1991)

• D hit V w/bottle and tape recorder and grabbed her around the throat, as if to strangle her
• Charged w/ s18, pleaded sane automatism and trial judge directed it to be insanity
• Held: CA confirmed that a transistory disorder caused by an internal factor which manifested itself in violence and might recur = insanity, according to M'Naghten rules
• A danger of recurrence may be an added factor, but it is not a requirement

Lowe

• D killed his dad while sleepwalking. Not guilty by reason of insanity

Quick (1973) - diabetes

• D (a nurse) attacked a patent. 
• D = a diabetic who had taken insulin
• trial judge ruled that this amounted to insanity
• Appeal allowed. D's condition was caused by the use of insuling - an EXTERNAL factor
  • External means not a disease of the mind
• defence of sane-automatism should have been put before the jury

the defect of reason had to be severe enough that D either did not know:

• the nature and quality of his act OR
• that his act was wrong

Codere (1916)

• nature + quality of his act refers to physical nature(rather than moral nature), so D doesn't know what action he is actually doing

• In Burgess, D did not know the nature of his actions, because he was asleep
• In Sullivan, did not know the nature of his actions, because he was having an epileptic fit
• In Kemp, D did not understand the nature of what he was doing, because he blacked out

means legally wrong, not morally wrong

Codere (1916)

• test is objective. Lord Reading CJ: the test of whether the act is wrong is 'according to the standard accepyted by reasonable men'

Windle (1952)

• D killed V to relieve her of her suffering
• D admitted that, in killing V, he knew he was committing an illegal act, despite thinking it was morally justified
• Held: 'wrong' in M'Naghten rules means legally wrong, not morally wrong

Johnson (2007)

•  D (schizophrenic) stabbed V. Psychiatrists said that he understood nature and quality of act and did know act was legally wrong. Psychiatrist said D didn't think act was morally wrong
• Held: critical point = meaning of 'wrong'. Following M'Naughten rules, means legally wrong

Lipman

• unable to  plead insanity
  • it was his voluntary intoxication, rather than a disease of the mind, which caused him to be unawared of the nature and quality of his act

If a person can show that, although intoxicated, it was his mental condition that had primarily caused the lack of awareness, then insanity may be available. In Burns, he had a disease of the mind, because his brain was damaged by alchohol

• can be used for any offence, including SL, as sane automatism is a denial of AR
• involuntary act must be caused by an EXTERNAL factor
• a complete defence; if successful -> full acquittal

Bratty

• 'an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscuious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking'

R v T (1990)

• D took part in a robbery
• raised defence of sane automatism as, at the time, she was in a dissociative state, sufffering from PTSD after being *****
• jury to consider automatism, as such an incident could have an appalling effect on D, however well-balanced normally
• **** = an external factor

A: anything internal

• Quick introduced the external factor theory - a malfunctioning of the mind caused by an external factor were not part of the law on insanity but could constitute automatism
  • Burgess failed, because sleepwalking is not external

For SL offences

• D must have no control over his bodily movements whatsoever

Watmore v Jenkins (1962)

• Driving offence - partial loss of control will not suffice for automatism

Broome v Perkins

• D, while drinving in a hypoglycemic state, caused an accident/
• Automatism failed, because D was able to exercise some voluntary control while in hypoglycemic state

A-G's Ref No2 (1992) (1993)

• D = lorry driver in trance after repetitive vision of long, flat road. Had collision + killed two people. Acquitted on automatism. d
• CA, replying to A-G, said that, as a partial loss of voluntary control, it did't amount to automatism

usually, the defence will not be available if the automatism was caused by D's own fault.

Lipman

• D claimed automatism but this failed because his intoxicated autonomic condition was self-induced

If the self-induced intoxication were to come about through another way (ie. not illegal drugs) then the defence may be available dependant on circumstances (Hardie)

Quick - hypOglycemic

• Held: conviction quashed. Quick's mental condition was not caused by his diabetes, but by the use of insulin (an external factor) -> entitled to automatism as a defence

Bailey (1983)

• D = diabetic who failed to eat enough after taking insulin. Caused someone GBH to someone
• charged w/s20
• Trial judge denied him automatism, saying condition was self-induced
  • CA overturned this, saying 'if D did not realise that failing to eat would put him into an aggressive state then he may use the defence of automatism. If, on the other hand he was aware that not eating would cause him to become aggrtessive, then he cannot use the defence

C (2007) and Clarke (2009)

• Ds were diabetics who had hypoglycemic episode while driving, lost control + killed pedestrian
• Both defences failed, because they were aware of deteriorating condition before episode - it was self-induced

• Usually, D has to show some medical evidence to support their claim of automatism (Baxter 1958)
• After this is provided, the burden of proof is on the P to prove the act was involuntary