general defence of insanity


HideShow resource information
d tries to assassinate pm but kills assaistant
McNaughten
1 of 14
McNaughten Rules
1) suffering defect of reason
2 of 14
defect of reason is complete loss of reasoning power, forgetfulness or absent mindedness won’t do.
seen in r v Clarke
3 of 14
R v Clarke
stole from a supermarket. claimed had no intention of stealing. argued she'd been absent-minded due to diabetes and depression.plead guilty appealed stating not insanity just lost reasoning powers
4 of 14
2) suffering disease of mind
any malfunctioning of the mind caused by something from within the body or mind will do.
5 of 14
R v Kemp
court said there's no distinction between disease of the mind and a disease of the body affecting the mind. i.e hardening of arteries
6 of 14
The continuing danger theory
Bratty: any mental disorder which has manifested in violence; is prone to recur is a disease of the mind
7 of 14
R v Sullivan (1984) confirmed Bratty
d kicked and injured friend during an epileptic seizure; was charged with gbh, plead automatism judge said insanity judges verdict upheld
8 of 14
The internal/external factor theory
Quick 1973: Court of Appeal made distinctions between conditions caused by an outside source, e.g. blow to the head etc. internal source It decided malfunctioning is caused by internal source such as mind
9 of 14
R v Quick
D suffered hypoglycaemic attack brought on by not eating enough after he took insulin. d attacked a patient at hospital causing gbh; said he couldn't remember anything convicted of insanity appeal said automatism
10 of 14
R v Hennessy
defendant = diabetic charged with taking a vehicle and driving whilst disqualified. he hadn't taken insulin for 3 days due to stress and depression suffering hyperglycaemia. j said insanity so d pled guilty; appealed but upheld as cause was internal
11 of 14
Sleepwalking – R v Burgess
d hit v with bottle and video recorder after falling asleep watching a film. He also grasped her round the throat; d pleaded automatism. The j said defence was insanity; Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal
12 of 14
3) So that either the d didn't know what he was doing or, if he did know he didn't know that what he was doing was wrong.
In Codere (1916) this was held to mean the physical rather than the moral nature of the act.
13 of 14
Knowledge that the act was wrong = illustrated in R v Windle
d killed his suicidal wife with an overdose of 100 aspirins. Despite medical evidence he was suffering mental illness he knew poisoning his wife was legally wrong. conviction upheld insanity not available knew was wrong
14 of 14

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

1) suffering defect of reason

Back

McNaughten Rules

Card 3

Front

seen in r v Clarke

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

stole from a supermarket. claimed had no intention of stealing. argued she'd been absent-minded due to diabetes and depression.plead guilty appealed stating not insanity just lost reasoning powers

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

any malfunctioning of the mind caused by something from within the body or mind will do.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »