Insanity

Question 1

What type of defence is insanity or Insane automatism?

Answer 1

A general defence with a specific verdict.

Question 2

What is the specific verdict?

Answer 2

Not guilty by reason of insanity. D may receive a hospital order

Question 3

What is the key case on Insanity, what does it set out?

Answer 3

M’Naghten. Sets out the M’Naghten rules.

Question 4

What is the presumption the court begins with?

Answer 4

D is sane. So D must rebut this presumption on a balance of probabilities in order to show otherwise.

Question 5

What are the 4 M’Naghten rules?

Answer 5

D must prove he was suffering from a:
1. Defect of Reason
2. Coming from a Disease of the Mind
3. So that D either Doesn’t know the NATURE or QUALITY of his act
4. OR Does not know what he is doing is WRONG.

Question 6

What does DoR mean?

Answer 6

D lacks/is deprived of the power of reasoning WHEN COMMITING THE CRIME. Symptom of the illness e.g. hallucinations

Question 7

What does DoM mean?

Answer 7

Legal definition meaning malfunctioning of the mind. e.g., Sleepwalking, Epilepsy, Schizophrenia, Diabetes.

Question 8

What must the factor be to be insanity and case?

Answer 8

INTERNAL. Hennessy.

Question 9

What does it mean that ‘D does not know the nature and quality of his act’?

Answer 9

D had no idea what he was doing at all (sleepwalking or blacked out) OR D had some idea of what he was doing but was mistaken (D thinks he’s cutting bread but is actually cutting someone’s neck).

Question 10

What does it mean that ‘D does not know the act is wrong’? Case?

Answer 10

R v Keal. D must not know that his act is BOTH legally AND morally wrong.