Law Special Study

Question 1 - Quick

HideShow resource information

Quick

- took insulin, failed to eat, hypoglycaemia, attacked patient, ABH.

CP - Whether amounted to insanity or automatism 12-13

AP1 - CoA held external, insulin not diabetes. 19-20. EFT 1st used NZ Cottle, persuasive, Lawson applied it in judgement for Quick, 21. Arguable Lawson introduced this to restrict insanity defence to be used in terms of diabetes. EFT supported in Sullivan. CoA decided defence automatism should be left to jury, 23, Crown failed, decision unfair.

AP2 - Arguable self induced, 18, hypo state numerous, 1, should been more aware of consequences. If automatism left to jury may been possible would not been acquitted,18.

LC - Hennesey also diabetic, didnt take insulin, hyperglycaemia. However, verdict differs, internal, diabetes, insanity. Arguable cases similar, different outcomes, inconsistency. Quick, like Hen and Sullivan felt plead guilty, avoid SV, unfair, D's lacked MR.

1 of 6

Burgess

- wounding with intent s.18 QAPA 1861, pleaded automatism, 3:6, on basis sleepwalking.

CP -whether somnambulism internal or eternal: insanity or automatism, 10-11.

AP1 - No evidence of external, Dr gave evidence was internal,sleep disorder. Crown psychiatrist suggested fallen into dissociative state, caused by emotional trauma, frustration by unrequited love. Judge ruled insanity, NGBRI. Confirmed by CoA, 31-33.

AP2 - Another aspect led to finding was tendency sleepwalking recur, 27. Lane 19-20, falling under Mrules, not precondition. Greater likelihood of recurrence, more likely DoM.

LC - Obiter statements past sleepwalking suggest sleepwalking non insane automatism, 21-25. Evident Denning in Bratty, 5:8-9, given as eg. However, decision Bratty conflicts SC Canada Parks, left automatism jury, acquitted. SC upheld acquittal. Evidence D under stress work, triggered sleepwalking, stresses removed, not repeat. Two courts came diff decisions. Bilton and Brian Thomas SV not persued. Suggests move away sleep disorders being insanity. Burgess criticised classing sleepwalkers who commit 'legally insane'. Difficult to support on med, leg and practical grounds. Inconsistency between definitions, confusing. 

2 of 6

R v T

CP - Pros argued PTSD DoM only defence open to T was insanity. Ability to open pen knife dmonstrated T retained partial control 6:28. Isitt made point if D still partially control no defence. Watmore v Jenkins 'complete'.

AP1 - Judge concluded cause PTSD being *****, dream state, external, automatism.

AP2 - Exceptional stress sufficient establish automatism. Not to be equated with anxiety or normal stresses everyday life. Stone SC Cananda 'extremely shocking trigger'

AP3 - T highlights importance med evidence required before judge offers defence to jury - psychiatrist confirmed T suffering PTSD and been in dissociative state 6:2.

LC - Comments made by CoA Narborough seriously undermine value T as precedent. D argued sexual abuse child caused PTSD, flashbacks, confused past and present. CoA rejected appeal judge declared evidence inadmissible. However, could be distinguished, her trauma recent. A-G Ref no 2 1992, CoA held must 'total'. In this case, cause D condition only partial did not amount to automatism.

3 of 6

M'Naghten

- murder sir Robert Peels sec 'extreme paranoic', NGBRI.

CP - Rules basis for defence insanity. Founded 19th Cent legal concepts, criticised 'not progressed in line with modern dev in med and psychiatry'. In response LC scoping paper requesting responses to q's help reform law. Critisism rules vague.

AP1 - Start presumption insanity. Defect reas Clarke 'DOTPOR' confusing jurors. DoM leg not med 2:17, Kemp. Confusing when faced with ev from both sides, leg conflict with med.

AP2 - NGBRI caused public disapproval, convinced law lords to establish standards for defence insanity. As result rules produced. Not come directly from case 2:27, fact not come case but based judges opinions 30, worthy consideration as rules not ratio of case, therefore not binding, persuasive. 52 jefferson comments on this, accepted used by higher courts, binding lower courts 32-34. 'Treated as if appeared in statute' 29-30.

LC - Rules basis insanity epilepsy etc...

4 of 6

Kemp

CP - Provided further clarification of DoM rules.

AP1 - D raised automatism not insanity, avoid SV. Argued physical illness not DoM 5:13-14. Automatism rejected.

AP2 - Courts raised issue insanity and held blackouts/ lack of consciousness internal. Insanity and DoM leg definition than med, confirmed 2:17-18. Difficult jurors conflict. Essentially leg definition and phrase DoM been broadened to cover operation of mind in all aspects. 

AP3 - Can be permanent or intermittent, must exist time commission. Thus, any disease which affects mind puts D within def of leg insanity.

AP4 - Support Kemps outcomes 1:21, Lawton ' a bodily disorder that affects workings of the mind can be DoM'. Further point prone recur 3:19-20, therefore, interests public safety argued correct decision. Bratty Denning DoM around CDT 'any mental disorder which manifested itself violence and prone recur is DoM'

LC - Seems ludicrous physical illness such as hardening classed disease amounting insanity. DoM subseq applied to cases involving etc...

5 of 6

Hennessey

- no insulin 3 days, hyper, TWOC and driving no licence.

CP - A diabetic commits while state automatism comes under defence insanity if state of automatism results from diabetes itself internal DoM.

AP1 - Distinguished from Quick were insulin external. Hen followed reasoning in Sullivan that problem recur internal 3:19-20. CDT, established in Bratty, Denning suggested internal, recur, public policy classed as internal 2:13. 

AP2 - D tried defence automatism claiming stress, external marital and employment problems. Not accepted by courts. Stress not external capable of creating involuntary state. Confirmed in Burgess. Diplock argued in Sullivan, external needs to be novel, extraordinary or accidental. Lane in Hen concluded stress, anxiety, depression not.

AP3 - Changed plea cause didnt want NGBRI. In conseq, received suspended prison sentence, disqual from driving 2yrs. Unfair considering diabetic coma when offence committed. However, preferable avoid social stigma associated with insanity and hospital under SV. Lane in Hen emphasised definition insanity leg, not med, 2:18

6 of 6

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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