533227
Insanity (Insane Automatism)
- M'Naghten (1843)
- Created the rules for the defence
- Main rule: every man is
presumed to be sane and
to possess a sufficient
degree of reason to be
responsible for his crimes
- Definition
- D must be labouring under such a
defect of reason, from disease of the
mind, as to not know the nature and
quality of the act he was doing,or if he
did know it, that he did not know what
he was doing was wrong
- Three elements
- (1) A defect of reason
- Powers of reasoning must be impaired
- Clarke (1972) held that the defect must be
more than absent-mindedness or confusion
- Clarke (1972) held that the defect must be
more than absent-mindedness or confusion
- Powers of reasoning must be impaired
- (2) Result of a disease of the mind
- Legal term (not medical)
- Mental or physical so long as it affects the mind
- Kemp (1956):
Hardening of the
arteries causing
moments of
temporary loss of
conciousness can
be sufficient
- Sullivan (1984): epilepsy comes within the defence. Lords also
ruled that the impairment can be permanent, transient or intermittent
- This means that the disease can be of any part
of the body provided it has an effect on the mind
- Hennessy (1989): high blood sugar levels because of diabetes
- Hyperglycaemia.
Hypoglycaemia
comes under
automatism
- Hyperglycaemia.
Hypoglycaemia
comes under
automatism
- Burgess (1991): some instances of sleep-walking
- Hennessy (1989): high blood sugar levels because of diabetes
- This means that the disease can be of any part
of the body provided it has an effect on the mind
- Internal cause
- Kemp (1956):
Hardening of the
arteries causing
moments of
temporary loss of
conciousness can
be sufficient
- Mental or physical so long as it affects the mind
- Legal term (not medical)
- (3) D doesn't know the nature and quality of his act or that what he is doing is wrong
- D is either is in a state of unconciousness or impaired conciousness or concious but
due to his mental condition he doesn't understand or know what he is doing is wrong
- If D knows the conduct is
legally wrong it can't be used
- Windle (1952)
- Johnson (2007)
- Windle (1952)
- D is either is in a state of unconciousness or impaired conciousness or concious but
due to his mental condition he doesn't understand or know what he is doing is wrong
- (1) A defect of reason
- Three elements
- D must be labouring under such a
defect of reason, from disease of the
mind, as to not know the nature and
quality of the act he was doing,or if he
did know it, that he did not know what
he was doing was wrong
- Main rule: every man is
presumed to be sane and
to possess a sufficient
degree of reason to be
responsible for his crimes
- Created the rules for the defence
- Special verdict
- Successfully plead defence will see jury return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity
- 1991 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act allows J to impose
supervision orders or absolute discharges or a hospital order (with or without restrictions).
Prior to the act only the latter was available. However, for murder J must impose an indefinite
hospital order. D will only be released with the consent of the Home Secretary
- 1991 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act allows J to impose
supervision orders or absolute discharges or a hospital order (with or without restrictions).
Prior to the act only the latter was available. However, for murder J must impose an indefinite
hospital order. D will only be released with the consent of the Home Secretary
- Successfully plead defence will see jury return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.