Insanity - Cases

Insanity - M'Naghten Rules Cases and their Significance

Flashcards for the M'Naghten Rules concerning Insanity:

A "Defect of Reason",

Caused by a "Disease of the mind"

That the defendant did not know that "the Nature or Quality of the Act"...

OR

...They were doing was "wrong" or legally wrong

Please NOTE that the significance of the cases are only focused around the M'Nagthen rules, the cases mentioned do also have other significance.

Please also Note I.F. means an Internal Factor

?
  • Created by: Amir
  • Created on: 30-11-12 19:50
(Defect of Reason) What was the Point of Law established in the case of CLARKE?
Held that "Your Powers of Reasoning must be impaired" rather than you fail to use those powers
1 of 17
(Defect of Reason) What was the Point of Law established in the case of KOPSCH?
Held that an "Irresistible Impulse" did not give rise to the defence of Insanity (cannot be used)
2 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of KEMP?
Held that this does not mean a "Disease of the Brain"
3 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of HENNESSEY?
Held that it means a disease which "affects the proper functioning of the mind". Held that Stress anxiety and depression were held to be a disease of the mind. D was a diabetic, D had High Blood Sugar which was held to be a disease of the mind - I.F.
4 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of QUICK?
D was diabetic, his “low blood sugar” this was held to not be a “disease of the mind” as it was caused by Insulin – EXTERNAL FACTOR. Note the differentiation from the case of Hennessey
5 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of BRATTY?
Lord D, stated that Sleep Walking = Automatism - Not judgement – OBITER DICTA
6 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of BURGESS?
Held that Sleep Walking = INSANITY – As it sleep walking was held to be a “disease of the mind”. CoA did not follow Bratty as it was only Persuasive Precedent. Judge held that in this case it was I.F.
7 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of BILTON (2005)?
Assumed that Sleepwalking = Automatism, seen as this as D was acquitted of the charge decided by Jury.
8 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of LOWE (Unreported 2005)?
D was Sleep Walking while drunk when the offence was committed. The defendant’s plea of Insane Automatism was accepted - Held to be INSANITY - Highlights Inconsistency of Decisions
9 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of POOLEY (Unreported 2007)?
D was Sleep Walking while drunk when the offence was committed. The defendant was acquitted of the charge. Held to be AUTOMATISM - Highlights Inconsistency of Decisions
10 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of RABEY?
Canadian Case - PERSUASIVE PRECEDENT – Held that the emotional reaction to something that occurs to you is part of everyday life so cannot be an EXTERNAL FACTOR - cannot use Automatism, so Rabey’s actions were caused by a “disease of the mind”.
11 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of T?
D was ***** before D committed the crime. Claimed to have suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress disorder. Held to be an EXTERNAL FACTOR = AUTOMATISM.
12 of 17
(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of SULLIVAN?
Epilepsy had been held to be a “disease of the mind”, (and Bratty),
13 of 17
(That the defendant did not know that "the Nature or Quality of the Act"... ) What was the Point of Law established in the case of CODERE?
It has held to mean the physical nature of the Act not the moral nature
14 of 17
(That the defendant did not know that "the Nature or Quality of the Act"... ) What was the Point of Law established in the case of YATES?
US Case, D did knowthe "nature or quality of the act of what she was doing", So under English Law D cannot rely on this section of the M'Naghten Rules for her defence of Insanity
15 of 17
(...They were doing was "wrong" or legally wrong) What was the Point of Law established in the case of WINDLE?
Held that “wrong” means “contrary to the law” - Legally wrong
16 of 17
(...They were doing was "wrong" or legally wrong) What was the Point of Law established in the case of Johnson (2007)?
Confirmed what was said in Windle which is that “wrong” means “contrary to the law” - So Legally wrong
17 of 17

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

(Defect of Reason) What was the Point of Law established in the case of KOPSCH?

Back

Held that an "Irresistible Impulse" did not give rise to the defence of Insanity (cannot be used)

Card 3

Front

(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of KEMP?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of HENNESSEY?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

(Caused by a "Disease of the mind") What was the Point of Law established in the case of QUICK?

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 Law of Tort resources »