Insanity - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Insanity Slide2

General

It is only the

insanity at the time of the offence

which matters, not insanity afterwards

(insanity afterwards may be relevant when deciding whether D should stand trial

)

Burden and Standard of proof

:

If

D raises the defence

- Burden

on

D. Standard

– balance of probabilities

If

prosecution raises the issue

– Burden on P. Standard – beyond reasonable doubtSlide3

Elements of the Defence

M’Naghten

– attempted assassination of the Prime

M

inister, Sir Robert Peel. D missed but killed

Peel’s

secretary, Edward Drummond. Medical opinion suggested D was mentally ill and

HoL

set out rules for use in such cases

:

Everyone is to be

presumed to be sane

Insanity may be proved if:

D suffered from

defect of reason

Caused

by a

disease of the mind

D

does not know the nature and quality of his act

or

does not know that what he was doing was wrongSlide4

Defect of Reason

Defect of reason must be

at the time of the offence

Inability

to use powers of reason –

not failing

to use powers or reason

So

not

a person who is confused or absent-minded

Clarke

– D charged with stealing from supermarket – transferred some items from basket to her own bag and left shop without paying. Claimed she must have done so in a moment of absent-mindedness. Held –

being temporarily absent-minded does not mean she was deprived of reason

– not insanitySlide5

Caused by a

Disease of the Mind

Defect of reason must be

caused

by a disease of the mind

Legal

term

not a medical term

Must be a

physical disease

rather than brought about by external factors such as

drugs:

If caused by

internal factors

– defence of

insanity

If caused by

external factors

– defence of

automatism

Can be

temporary or permanent

Courts have attempted to define “disease of the mind” over many years but we really only have examples from cases of what has been classed as “disease of the mind”Slide6

Examples

of “Disease of the Mind”

Kemp

– D suffered from arteriosclerosis – affects the flow of blood to the brain. Sometimes caused a temporary lack of consciousness. During one such episode he attacked his wife with a hammer and killed her – court held

disease of mind could be temporary

Bratty

– D suffered from a

psychomotor epileptic seizure

while driving his van with a girl in the passenger seat. D took off her tights and strangled her with them. Held –

any mental disorder that could lead to violence that was likely to reoccur is a disease of the mind

Sullivan

– D kicked and injured his friendly elderly neighbour during a

minor epileptic fit

– held this

could amount to insanity

– shows how the

legal and medical definition

of disease of the mind are

very different

Burgess

– D was watching films with his friend at her flat when they both fell asleep. D hit his friend over the head with a bottle and a

video

recorder and then grabbed her throat. When she cried out he realised what he had done and claimed he had been

sleepwalking

. Held that

sleepwalking caused by internal factor so disease of the mind

- insanitySlide7

D

does not know the nature and quality of his act

OR

does not know that what he was doing was wrong

1. Nature and quality

“Nature and quality” refers to the

physical quality

of the act

D needs to prove any of the following:

He

did not know what he was doing

; or

He

did not appreciate the consequences

of his act; or

He

did not appreciate the circumstances

in which he was acting

Burgess

– D did not know nature of act as he was sleepwalking

Sullivan

– D did not understand what he was doing when he hit out during an epileptic fit

Kemp

– did not understand the nature of what he was doing because of a lapse of consciousnessSlide8

D

does not know the nature and quality of his act

OR

does not know that what he was doing was wrong

2. Does not know that what he was doing was wrong

Means D did not know what he was doing was

legally wrong

If

D did not know that what he was doing was wrong he has

mens

rea

for the offence but because of insanity he does not know it was wrong so can use the defence

Windle

– D killed his insane wife but pleaded his own insanity. He originally gave himself up to the police saying “I suppose I’ll hang for this”. As he showed he

knew the nature and quality of his act

, and

that what he was doing was

wrong

- no

defence

Johnson

– D forced his way into neighbour’s flat and stabbed him with a large kitchen knife. D said he did not know what he was doing. Judge said he knew his actions were legally wrong so the defence failedSlide9

Insanity and

Intoxication

If the defect of reason comes about through intoxication, the

defence fails

Lipman

– D had taken LSD and was hallucinating. Thought he was fighting snakes and killed his girlfriend by stuffing a sheet down her throat. Defence of insanity failed

If defect of reason results from

alcoholism

it could succeed as this can be classed as a “

disease

”Slide10

Consequence

of the Defence

Successful defence – D found not guilty but given a

special verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity”.

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

– Court has range of options:

If

murder

– court

must make hospital order restricting D’s discharge indefinitely

For any

other offence

:

Hospital order

and an order restricting discharge either for a

limited

or

unlimited

period of time

Guardianship order

Supervision

and

treatment

order

Order for

absolute dischargeSlide11

Why it is

not a popular defence

Has a

special verdict rather than acquittal

Was more popular when the

death penalty

was used for murder

Also, they now have the option of pleading partial defence of

V

oluntary Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility

Ds are not keen on the

potential indeterminate orders

that can be made

But if

D raises evidence of his mental state

by pleading diminished responsibility or automatism,

prosecution can then raise insanitySlide12

Questions on Insanity

Is there a

defect of reason

?

Is it

caused by a disease of the mind

? (remember it must be an

internal factor

for insanity)

Does one of the following apply?

D does not know the nature and quality of his

act

; or

He did not know what he was doing; or

He did not appreciate the consequences of his act; or

He did not appreciate the circumstances in which he was

acting

D

does not know that what he was doing was wrong