and intoxication Insanity MNaghten 1843 Daniel MNaghten had become so obsessed with the then Prime Minister Robert Peel that he decided to shoot him Instead he missed and shot and killed the Prime Ministers secretary Edward Drummond ID: 915030
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Capacity defences of insanity" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Capacity defences of insanity
and
intoxication
Insanity
Slide2M’Naghten
1843
Daniel
M’Naghten
had become so obsessed with the then Prime Minister, Robert Peel, that he decided to shoot him.
Instead
, he missed and shot and killed the Prime Minister’s secretary, Edward Drummond.
He
was found to be suffering from extreme paranoia, and was found not guilty by reason
of
insanity.
Slide3M’Naghten
Rules
Devised by the House of Lords following the
M’Naghten
case due to public outcry
.
Defendant should be presumed sane unless, at the time of the offence, he can prove he was
:
labouring
under such a defect of
reason caused
by a disease of the
mind so
that he did
not
know either the nature and quality of
the
act
or, if he did
now
it, that he didn’t
know what
he was doing was
wrong.
Slide4Defect of Reason
The Courts have stated that there needs to be a complete absence of the power to reason. Absentmindedness or confusion are not sufficient.
Clarke
1972
Woman
accused of theft, said she was acting absentmindedly due to depression and diabetes. Court said the rules do not apply to those who retain the power to reason, but don’t use it in moments of confusion or absentmindedness.
Disease of the Mind
This can be either a mental or physical disease which affects the mind
. The term is a legal term and not a medical one.
Medical
conditions such as schizophrenia are covered but so are many other conditions which would not be defined as being a disease of the mind in any medical sense.
Kemp
(1956)
Sullivan
(1984)
Hennessy
(1989)
Burgess
(1991)
Must
be caused by an internal
factor.
Quick
1973 – condition caused by an external factor , the drug insulin, therefore the defendant could rely on the defence of automatism and not insanity.
Voluntary Intoxication
Where the defendant voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance and this causes a temporary psychotic episode, then the defence of insanity cannot be used. This is because the intoxicating substance is an external factor
See Coley (2013 and Harris (2013)
Nature and Quality of the Act
Defendant does not know the physical character of the act:
-
because
he/ she is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired
consciousness
;
or
-
h
e
/ she is conscious but does not understand or know what
he
/ she is doing due to his/ her mental condition.
Kemp and Burgess were both in a state of lost
consciousness.
See the recent case of Oye (2013) for a defendant not knowing the nature and quality of his act.
Slide8Nature and Quality of the Act
The defendants must prove they did not know what they were doing was legally wrong
. If the defendant knows the nature and quality of the act and that it is legally wrong he cannot use the defence of insanity, this is so even if the defendant is suffering from a mental illness as in the case of
Windle
.
Windle 1952: Defendant
gave wife overdose of aspirin. When the police arrived he said,
“I suppose they’ll hang me for this!”.
This
last statement was evidence that he knew what he was doing was wrong and he was hanged.
Windle
was shown to know what he was doing was wrong and knew the punishment in law for his actions
.
The case of Windle was recently followed in Johnson (2007)
Slide9Verdict
Not guilty by reason of insanity.
Prior to 1991 the only punishment was a hospital order which was not appropriate for those suffering with diabetes, epilepsy, etc.
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 introduced new orders available to the judge:
Hospital order without time limit (mandatory for murder)
Hospital order with time limit
Guardianship order
Supervision and treatment order
Absolute discharge
Slide10Problems with the Defence
It is based on an 1843 case.
Definition
of insanity is legal not medical.
Some
defendants who should be regarded as insane are not e.g. Byrne 1960.
Defendants
suffering with physical diseases like diabetes, or even those who sleep walk are considered insane e.g. Hennessy 1989 and Burgess 1991.
Defendant
has to prove insanity which may breach ECHR Art 6 – Defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
There
is a stigma to being labelled insane yet it is the only defence available to many defendants.
It
is the jury’s job to decide whether the defendant is insane and they are not really qualified for this.
Slide11Reform
Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1953 - suggested those with irresistible impulses would have been covered – it never became law.
Instead
the Government introduced the defence of diminished responsibility but this is only available for murder charges.
Butler
Committee 1975 - suggested it should be replaced by verdict of ‘not guilty on evidence of mental disorder’ - this never became law.
The
Draft Criminal Code 1989 - suggested defendant should be not guilty on evidence of severe mental disorder or handicap
- this
never became law.
Criminal
Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 - gave judges more discretion on disposals where the defendant uses the defence of insanity.
The Law Commission's paper in 2012 on insanity and automatism - offers alternatives but does not make any definite proposals.
Slide12Link with Automatism
Insanity is also known as insane automatism - automatism is also known as non-insane automatism.
Insanity is caused by an internal factor - automatism is caused by an external factor.
The verdict for insanity is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ and will usually result in some form of treatment order.
A successful plea of automatism will lead to a complete acquittal.