Karteikarten
Insanity
Karten in diesem Stapel (25)
- 1The defence of insanity-governed by the M'Naghten Rules
-under these rules, everyone is presumed to be sane until the contrary has been proved
-therefore, up to D to prove that he/she was insane on balance of probabilities
-usually D raises issue of mental state, if he/she does not, cold be raised by judge or prosecution if insanity is evident - 2The M'Naghten RulesUnder the M'Naghten rules, it must be established that at the time of the offence the defendant was suffering from:
-disease of the mind
-leads to a defect of reason
-The defect of reason must be such that the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act
OR
-did not know that what he/she was doing was wrong (legally) - 3Disease of the mind-legal term, not medical- this has been criticised
-widely interpreted
-will be caused by internal factor
-any disease that affects mind puts D within the definition of insanity
-can be permanent or intermittent but must exist a time of the commission of offence - 4Mind?-has been interpreted in the ordinary sense of the mental faculties of reasoning, memory and understanding
-if these faculties are severely impaired by internal factor so as to satisfy other elements of the M'Naghten Rules, then D is legally insane - 5R v Kemp 1957He suffered from arteriosclerosis which lead to a congestion of blood in the brain. This caused a temporary lack of consciousness, so that he was not conscious that he picked up the hammer or that he was striking his wife with it. He argued that it was a physical illness not a disease of the mind
Held:
The hardening of the arteries was a " disease of the mind " within the M'Naghten Rules and therefore he could not rely on the defence of automatism. - 6Epilepsy- courts in Bratty 1963 and Sullivan 1984 held that epilepsy was to be treated as a disease of mind under M'Naghten rules
-L.D Diplock said in Sullivan that the aim of the M'Naghten rules was to protect society from recurring, violent conduct.
-Sullivan's disease of mind did recur and was violent - 7Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland 1963-strangled and killed 18 yr old girl while giving her a lift
-suffered from epilepsy and said was unconscious at time of killing
-raised defence of automatism
trial judge directed jury to consider insanity
-evidence for epileptic attack was v. weak
-appealed, judge was wrong not to consider automatism
-Law Lords dismissed appeal, trial judge was right in directing jury to consider insanity - 8R v Sullivan 1984-epileptic, charged with GBH
-wanted to use defence of automatism but judge said he would have to direct the jury to consider insanity,
-d changed plea to guilty (A02)
-law lords held epilepsy was disease of mind because D's mental faculties were impaired - 9Diabetes-affects the body's ability to produce insulin
-if blood sugar levels either too high or too low a seizure may occur
-there are two forms of diabetes - 10Hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar)-caused by taking too much insulin or failing to eat after taking insulin
- 11Hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar)-caused by failure to take adequate insulin
- 12Hyperglycaemia: R v Hennessy 1989-D caught driving stolen car
-was required to take 2 doses of insulin a day but failed to do so because of anxiety
-argued state of automatism
-judge said that D's actions were a result of diabetes, an internal factor
-it brought Hennessy within defence of insanity because it was a disease of mind and likely to recur
-the diabetes itself had caused hyperglycaemia - 13Hypoglycaemia: R v Quick 1973-accused of assaulting patient at mental hospital
-pleaded not guilty
-took insulin and failed to eat
-relied on defence of automatism
-used medical evidence for hypo but judge said this could only support insanity
-changed to guilty and appealed
-held that an external factor caused his problems, it was insulin rather than diabetes
-conviction quashed - 14Sleepwalking-offences committed while D was asleep usually had access to automatism
-but with emphasis on the courts on the external factor theory, it has often been treated as an internal factor
-Burgess and Lowe came within defence of insanity
-but if sleepwalking was due to blow to the head, may be automatism - 15R v Burgess 1991-d and v fell asleep
-in his sleep, Burgess hit V over head with bottle and video recorder and tried to strangle her
-she cried out and D came to his senses and called for an ambulance
--defence argued state of automatism
-but no evidence of external factor and that it was caused by a sleeping disorder which could recur.
-held that it was an internal factor and the case therefore came under the M rules
-not found guilty by reason of insanity - 16R v Lowe 2005-d killed father but insisted he had been sleepwalking throughout the savage attack.
-tried to use defence of automatism but failed
-found not guilty by reason of insanity - 17Defect of reasoning-once a disease of the mind has been shown, you must also show that it led to a defect of reason
-defect of reason means that D is simply incapable of reasoning
-if D is incapable of some reasoning but has failed to use these powers then this is not a defect of reasoning
-thus, the defect of reason is more than absent-mindedness or momentary confusion - 18R v Clarke 1972-changed with shoplifting
-had no intention to steal but had acted in a moment of absent-mindedness caused by a diabetic depression induced by sugar deficiency
-judge said defence was insanity
-changed plea to guilty then appealed.
-CoA allowed appeal and it was held that short periods of absent-mindedness fell far short of amounting to a defect of reason. - 19D was unaware of the nature and quality of his/her act-this refers to physical nature
-did D know what he/she was doing
-jury must be satisfied that D did not know what he/she was doing was legally wrong
-D may be insane if he/she did not know what he/she was actually doing - 20D was unaware that what he/she was doing was wrong-if D knew the nature and quality of the act but still did not realise what s/he was doing was wrong, D can still come within rules of insanity
-so, if D insists that it was right for him to kill, D would be aware that he was killed but believed that he was right to kill and so doing no wrong (victim possessed by devil) - 21R v Windle 1952-killed his wife
-med evidence said he seemed to be suffereing from mental illness
-but he knew what he had done was unlawful becausee he said to police 'i suppose they will hang me for this' - 22R v Johnson 2007-D stabbed V
-psychiatrists said he was suffering from hallucinations and paranoid schizophrenia but, despite this, he knew the quality and nature of his acts and that they were legally wrong
-he, therefore could not use the defence of insanity and was convicted - 23Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 and section 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.-these acts have tried to make the situation easier by giving judge wider powers to deal with D in the event of a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'
-this was developed out of Trial of lunatics act 1883
-before 1991, D had to be detained in hospital
-this led to them changing plea to guilty when they were probably innocent
- the Domestic violence, crime and victims act 2004 removed the option of guardianship
-in the case of murder, a restriction order must accompany any hospital order
-home secretary makes decision as to when D can be released based on public safety
-jury now assisted by having evidence that D was suffering from mental illness from 2 experienced doctors - 24Criticisms of the M'Naghten Rules-lack of clarity since the law is outdated
-parliament needs to update this area of law
-scientific knowledge not taken into account
- insanity has become legal rather than medical, psychopaths who suffer from irresistible impulses do not come under M rules because they know what they're are doing and that its wrong, there is no irresistible impulse defence
-Issues relating to defining disease of the mind – especially in
relation to epileptics and diabetics
-the jury decide whether D is insane or not- should be doctor
-many plead guilty rather than insane - 25Proposals for reform-the word insanity is not appropriate and the butler committee 1975 and the law commission suggested changes to the wording
-the verdict should be changed to 'not guilty by reason of mental disorder'
-faults persist, as most of the reforms have not been used
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Insanity , erstellt von vetonvishkalaw am 03/03/2016.
- Erstellt von
- vetonvishkalaw
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung