Insanity and Automatism Flashcards

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: bananaaar
  • Created on: 05-05-15 11:31
What is insanity a defence to?
Any crime requiring MR.
1 of 42
What is insanity not a defence to?
Crimes of strict liability [DPP v H]
2 of 42
DPP v H]
D charged with driving with excess alcohol. Insanity no defence to a crime of strict liability.
3 of 42
What is insanity governed by?
M'Naghten Rules 1843
4 of 42
[M'Naughten] 1843
D killed Robert Peel's secretary while suffering from extreme paranoia. Created the test for insanity.
5 of 42
Where is burden of proof for insanity?
On D to prove insanity on the balance of probabilities.
6 of 42
What is the special verdict?
Not guilty by reason of insanity.
7 of 42
Where is special verdict laid out?
S1 Criminal procedure (Insanity) act 1964 as amended by Criminal Procedure, Insanity and Unfitness to plead act 1991 and s24 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
8 of 42
Examples of disposal order?
Absolute discharge, community order, supervision order, hospital order.
9 of 42
Sentence for insanity on murder charge?
COmpulsary hospital order.
10 of 42
D took items from supermarket without knowing due to diabetes and depression. CA quashed conviction as needed inability to reason, not just imperfect reasoning.
11 of 42
D strangled girlfriend with stocking whilst having a black out. Lord denning created test of 'prone to violence and reoccur'.
12 of 42
D had hardening of the arteries, he attacked wife with hammer. CA upheld insanity as physical illness removed D's mind and ability to reason.
13 of 42
D was an epileptic who injured elderly neighbour during fit when visiting. HL created a broad definition of disease of the mind, the source of the disease is irrelevant.
14 of 42
D was diabetic and took no insulin for 3 days. Charged with taking motor vehicle without consent and driving while disqualified. CA held insanity correct defence as internal factor affected D's mind.
15 of 42
D was a diabetic nurse who took insulin but ate insufficient food and assaulted patient. CA held conditionn induced by insulin, an external factor and insanity was not appropriate.
16 of 42
D attacked girlfriend after falling asleep watching a film. CA upheld sleep disorder causing sleepwalking as insanity.
17 of 42
D took part in a robbery and assault 3 days after **** in dream-like state and suffering PTSD. External stress can give rise to the defence is sufficiently severe.
18 of 42
D hit son with hammer. Evidence that D suffered from a cerebral tutor which could have caused sudden violence. Held he did not know what he was doing so his mind was not in control of limbs. Raised defence of automatism, not guilty of s18.
19 of 42
D convicted of murder. Wanted to rely on insanity but at time he knew it was unlawful to kill. Not able to rely on defence of insanity.
20 of 42
D killed wife with 100 aspirin and said 'I suppose they will hang me for this'. D not insane as he knew act was wrong in law.
21 of 42
D was a paranoid schizophrenic who attacked neighbour. D not insane as he knew what he was doing and that it was legally wrong.
22 of 42
What is automatism a defence to?
Any crime, leading to full acquittal.
23 of 42
Burden of proof?
On P to prove no automatism.
24 of 42
Is medical evidence required from automatism?
25 of 42
D strangled girlfriend with stocking whilst having a black out. Lord denning created test.
26 of 42
[Hill v Baxter]
D hit car when failed to stop at junction and said remembered nothing. QBD directed conviction as no evidence to automatic conduct.
27 of 42
D suffered a sneexing fit while driving and knocked into car in front. Was allowed defence of automatism.
28 of 42
D blacked out and woke up with her husband dead and gun next to her. Evidence to support sane automatism was disallowed by judge.
29 of 42
D attacked parent-in law when sleepwalking. Didn't remember the actions and had no reasonable motive for murder. Was acquitted at trial and CA.
30 of 42
D attacked girl due to excess stress caused by his rejected advances. Not automatism but stress of rejection could be insanity.
31 of 42
[Watmore v Jenkins]
D drove dangerously while suffering progressive hypoglycaemia and gradually lost consciousness. Guilty as only when driver is not really driving is the defence of automatism available.
32 of 42
D drove off after accident avoiding police car and road block. No automatism as some control even though evidence of dissociative state.
33 of 42
[AG ref no2 of 1992]
Lorry driver drove along motorway hard shoulder and killed 2 people but said he was in a trance like state. CA held not automatism as only partial loss of control.
34 of 42
D diabetic and taken insulin but not eaten enough before hitting person with iron bar. CA upheld conviction as state self-induced.
35 of 42
During LSD trip D killed V by cramming sheet down her throat. Acquitted of murder because jury were not satisfied he had necessary MR. Guilty of manslaughter.
36 of 42
[Kay v Butterworth]
Fell asleep at wheel and knocked down marching soldiers. Defence of automatism failed as although lacking control of his actions, he ought not to have been driving in that condition.
37 of 42
hypoglycaemic driver needed to show he was totally unable to control car and had no warning symptoms.
38 of 42
[Coley, McGhee, Harris]
D stabbed neighbour after smoking cannabis. Defences of insanity and automatism rejected as Ds actions must be wholly involuntary. Intoxication is self induced behaviour.
39 of 42
[Broome v Perkins]
D guilty of driving without due care and attention even though hypoglycaemic because he had exercised sufficient control of car to drive home. Partial or impaired control insufficient.
40 of 42
Criteria for insanity?
1) defect of reason 2) disease of mind, internal factor, 3) D did not know nature and quality or his act and if he did he did not know it was legally wrong.
41 of 42
Criteria for automatism?
1) need an involuntary act 2)involuntary act must be induced from an external factor 3) self induced involuntary action is not allowed 4) must be incapable of forming MR 5) in strict liability cases, must show complete absence of conscious control.
42 of 42

Other cards in this set

Card 2


What is insanity not a defence to?


Crimes of strict liability [DPP v H]

Card 3


DPP v H]


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


What is insanity governed by?


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


[M'Naughten] 1843


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Insanity and Automatism resources »