Insanity Evaluation

Insanity Evaluation

1. M'Naghten Rules

   • Set in 1843 when knowledge of mental disorders was very limited
     • More modern definition should be used
       • Parliament has only reformed the options available to Js with those found not guilty by reason of insanity
         • This has resolved the injustices of epileptics and diabetics having to be sent to a mental hospital
           • Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 allows Js impose supervision orders and absolute discharges, or hospital order

2. Legal Definition of Insanity

   • Legal one rather than medical
   • Certain mental disorders don't come within the definition
     • E.g. those suffering from irresistible impulses and are psycopaths
       • Byrne (1960)
       • Know what they are doing and that it is wrong but can't prevent themselves doing it due to a recognised mental disorder
   • Those suffering from physical illnesses (see e.g.s) are considered legally insane
     • Diabetes (Hennessy)
     • Brain tumours or hardening of the arteries (Kemp)
     • Sleep-walker (Burgess)
     • Argue the cause is internal so the behaviour may recur and it may be possible to treat

3. Overlap with automatism

   • Necessary to decide if the automatic state is caused by internal or external factors
     • Anything which impacts the mind or puts D into an automatic state amounts to insanity
       • This means that defence of no-insane automatism has been removed from epileptics and diabetics
         • Those who plead automatism successfully are entitled to a complete acquittal
           • But, still the risk they will commit further offences. The extension of insanity means that these people can be supervised

4. Decision in Windle (1952)

   • D who doesn't know his act is morally wrong but knows it is legally wrong cannot use this defence
   • An Australian case refused to follow this decision
     • Johnson (2007) CA pointed out the merit of the Australian case but were obliged to follow Windle

5. Social Stigma

   • Associated with the word insanity. Inappropriate to apply it ti those suffering epilepsy or diabetes

6. Proof of Insanity

   • Burden of proof on D
     • Breach of A6 ECHR?

7. Role of the Jury

   • Possibly inconsistent
   • Juries are mainly made up of people with no medical knowledge and they have to decide on the sanity of D at the material time
     • Medical evidence may be confusing
   • Possibility that the jurors may disregard all medical evidence because they are revolted by D's offences
     • E.g. Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) 1981

8. Overlap with DR

   • DR available since 1957 and covers a wider range of mental illnesses (note: only for murder)
     • '90s - ~ 50 DR a year plead successfully to murder and ~ 5 relied on insanity per year
       • Shows DR as a better option to plead when it comes to murder
         • Doesn't carry the social stigma of being declared insane

9. Reform proposals

   • 1953 Royal Commission on Capital Punishment
     • Proposed extending M'Naghten Rules so D would be considered insane if he 'was incapable of preventing himself' committing the offence
       • Parliament instead introduced DR which is only for murder but J largely has discretion in sentencing for all other offences
   • 1975 Butler Committee proposed verdict of not guilty on evidence of mental disorder
   • 1989 LC's Draft Criminal Code proposed D shouldn't be guilty on evidence of severe mental disorder or severe mental handicap
   • 1991 CPA changed the way Js can deal with Ds when the jury returns a special verdict
     • However, no other reform has been implemented