This case set out the test for the defence of insanity; there are three key areas of the test - defect of reason, disease of the mind, and the defendant does not know the nature and quality of his act.
1 of 7
Clarke (1972)
A person who is confused or absent-minded is not insane; thus an absent-minded person putting things in her own bag rather than a supermarket basket may be not guilty of theft if the jury recognises she did not have the mens rea for theft.
2 of 7
Kemp (1957)
Arteriosclerosis caused occasional lapses of consciousness in the defendant; whilst he was suffering from this, he killed his wife by hitting her with a hammer; this was treated as insanity.
3 of 7
Bratty (1963)
Psychomotor epileptic seizure could amount to insanity
4 of 7
Sullivan (1984)
Minor epileptic fit can amount to insanity rather than automatism, in law; automatism requires an external factor.
5 of 7
Burgess (1991)
Sleepwalking can be a disease of the mind if caused by an internal factor.
6 of 7
Windle (1952)
Defendant did know the nature and quality of his act, and that what he was doing was wrong, so he could not rely on the defence of insanity.
7 of 7
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
A person who is confused or absent-minded is not insane; thus an absent-minded person putting things in her own bag rather than a supermarket basket may be not guilty of theft if the jury recognises she did not have the mens rea for theft.
Back
Clarke (1972)
Card 3
Front
Arteriosclerosis caused occasional lapses of consciousness in the defendant; whilst he was suffering from this, he killed his wife by hitting her with a hammer; this was treated as insanity.
Back
Card 4
Front
Psychomotor epileptic seizure could amount to insanity
Back
Card 5
Front
Minor epileptic fit can amount to insanity rather than automatism, in law; automatism requires an external factor.
Comments
No comments have yet been made