Insanity and Automatism

?
What is the Leading case?
M'Naughten
1 of 11
What is the first element?
Defect of reason
2 of 11
In which case was it held that a defect of reason means that the Defendants powers of reasoning are impaired
Clarke
3 of 11
Which case held ‘The condition of the brain is irrelevant and so is the question whether the condition of the mind is curable or incurable, transitory or permanent’.
Kemp
4 of 11
How many elements are there to this defence?
Three
5 of 11
Which case held: ‘It could be organic, as in epilepsy, or functional.’
Sullivan
6 of 11
In which case was it held that 'wrong' meant 'legally wrong'?
Windle
7 of 11
In which case was diabetes regarded as an internal cause?
Hennessy
8 of 11
‘A complete loss of voluntary control that was not caused by what the person could reasonably foresee and is not a self-induced incapacity or one that was a result of a disease of the mind’.
Smallshire
9 of 11
Which case held There must be a ‘total destruction of voluntary control’.
AGs Reference 2
10 of 11
What distinguishes automatism from insanity?
External Factor
11 of 11

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What is the first element?

Back

Defect of reason

Card 3

Front

In which case was it held that a defect of reason means that the Defendants powers of reasoning are impaired

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Which case held ‘The condition of the brain is irrelevant and so is the question whether the condition of the mind is curable or incurable, transitory or permanent’.

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

How many elements are there to this defence?

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 Defence resources »