Insanity Defence

?
  • Created by: nebulanya
  • Created on: 09-12-19 10:35
Definition of Insanity
Insanity is a defence avaiable to all crimes where D was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing
1 of 29
Type 1 insanity denies...
denies the entire offence
2 of 29
M'Naghten Rules argues that type 1 insanity requires that
D did not know the nature or quality of his conduct due to his insanity and therefore lacked mens rea for the crime
3 of 29
Is there a type 2 insanity?
Yes
4 of 29
M'Naghten Rules argues that type 2 insanity requires that
D did satisfy both the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime but did not know what he was doing was legally wrong due to insanity
5 of 29
Where would you analyse type 1 insanity
In the mens rea section
6 of 29
Where would you analyse type 2 insanity?
After your actus reus and mens rea sections of the problem question
7 of 29
Burden of Proof is on...
the defendant for proving insanity type 1 or type 2.
8 of 29
The law presumes the defendant is
sober and sane from the get go in order to rely on the defence of insanity. Defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that he was insane
9 of 29
Special verdict
This special verdict will allow the court to impose a range of disposal orders, including hospital order, supervision order and an order of absolute discharge.
10 of 29
What happened in McNaughten [1843]
The defendant was suffering from morbid delusions which made him think the conservative party was stalking and persecuting him. The defendant intended to kill Robert Peel who was the then Prime Minister but killed the PM’s secretary instead
11 of 29
1st M'Naughten Rules
1. D was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of the crime and
12 of 29
2nd M'Naughten Rules
Such disease of the mind caused D to have a defect of reason and
13 of 29
3rd M'Naughten Rules
Such defect of reason caused D not to know the nature or quality of his act or caused D not to know what he was doing was legally wrong
14 of 29
Ratio of R v Kemp?
A disease of the mind concerns with the disease that affects the faculties of memory, reason and understanding; and whether the disease has a physical origin or mental origin is irrelevant
15 of 29
More of the ratio of R v Kemp?
so is whether the condition of the mind is curable or incurable, transitory (temporary) or permanent.
16 of 29
Ratio of R v Sullivan
"Mind" in the M'Naghten rules is used in the ordinary sense of the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding. If the effect of diseases is to impair these faculties so severely as to cause D not to know what he was doing or what he was doi
17 of 29
More of R v Sullivan
if matters not whether the aetiology of the impairment is organic or functional or whether the impairment itself is permanent or is transient or intermittent.
18 of 29
R v Quick
D attacked V while he was suffering from hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) as a result of taking insulin but not eating enough food.
19 of 29
Ratio of R v Quick
Disease of the mind is a malfunctioning of the mind caused by disease and does not include a malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect caused by the application to the body of some external factor such as insulin
20 of 29
R v Hennessy
D an insulin dependent diabetic, took a car without consent and drove whilst disqualified while he was suffering from hyperglycaemia.
21 of 29
Ratio of Hennessy
Hyperglycaemia caused by high blood sugar levels (diabetes) was an inherent defect that was a disease of the mind within M’Naughten Rules. Stress, anxiety and depression were not separately or together external factors of the kind capable in law of c
22 of 29
R v Burgess [1991]
D attacked V while in a sleep walking episode causing violent GBH on V
23 of 29
Ratio of Burgess
Appellant’s state was an abnormality was due to an internal factor whether functional or organic had manifested itself in violence and might recur, and therefore was a disease of the mind
24 of 29
Defect of Reason
Defect of reason is the inability to use one’s power of reason. It takes the form that D’s power of reasoning is completely deprived not just impaired.
25 of 29
R v Clarke
D took articles from a supermarket without paying for them. She was absent-minded when acting.
26 of 29
Ratio of Clarke
The M’Naghten rules relate to accused persons who by reason of a disease of the mind are deprived of the powers of reasoning and do not apply to a momentary failure by someone to concentrate.
27 of 29
Nature and quality of the act refers to..
the physical aspects of the circumstances and consequences attending D’s conduct. Put it another way, D did not know what he was doing.
28 of 29
R v Windle ratio
“Wrong” in the insanity defence means in regards to law, rather than morally wrong.
29 of 29

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Type 1 insanity denies...

Back

denies the entire offence

Card 3

Front

M'Naghten Rules argues that type 1 insanity requires that

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Is there a type 2 insanity?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

M'Naghten Rules argues that type 2 insanity requires that

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal resources »