Insanity

Question 1

where in statute is it defined who can use insanity and what does it say?

Answer 1

• Section 2 Criminal Procedures Act 1991
• States an accused may be unfit to plead where it is established that due to his mental condition he is unable to understand the charge before him.

Question 2

Why would someone not necessarily want to plead NGRI?

Answer 2

• Because they may be forced to under go hospital treatment

- Sometimes the hospital admission ends up being longer than the sentence might have been so not really worth it.

Question 3

When did rules on insanity change and what was the consequence?

Answer 3

• Changed in the early 1990’s

- When someone pleads NGRI the judge now has discretion to impose a hospital order, discharge or a supervision order.

Question 4

R v M’naghten 1843

Answer 4

• The D attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister and he thought he was plotting against him.
• He was suffering from morbid delusions and persecutions syndrome and instead shot Pm’s secretary.
• Was committed to hospital for NGRI
• Created the M’naghten rules

Question 5

What are the M’naghten rules (Rebuttable presumption?)

Answer 5

• They are rules created in 1843 that have been followed ever since
• Stated that the jury should be directed that every man is presumed sane until the contrary is proved to their satisfaction.
• AND that to establish a defence the party accused must at the time have been labouring under a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
• OR that he did not know what he was doing was wrong

Question 6

R v Sullivan 1993

Answer 6

• Was proved and decided in this case that the M’naghten rules are now law

Question 7

What are the 4 criteria to prove insanity?

Answer 7

• Defect of reason
• Disease of the mind
• Not knowing the nature and quality of the act
• Did not know the act he did was wrong

Question 8

Simester and Sullivan 2016

Answer 8

• Showed that a defect of reason does morally allow for the person not to be held responsible for actions.
• ’ If under the influence of drink or drugs D believes she can execute some dangerous manoeuvre, we may,hold them morally responsible for any harm that follows’
• BUT ‘ should the same belief arise from schizophrenia or delusions talk or moral responsibility would seem to miss the mark

Question 9

How is a disease of the mind determined?

Answer 9

• It is a legal question, NOT MEDICAL

Question 10

Kemp 1957

Answer 10

• Killed his wife but had a condition that cut of blood supply to his brain
• Was decided that 2 medical experts must give evidence of the individuals frame of mind.
• It is then for the judge to apply this evidence to create the decision

Question 11

What is an internal state of mind and what is an external state of mind?

Answer 11

• Internal is insanity

- External is usually automatism

Question 12

Hennessey 1989

Answer 12

• D was diabetic who failed to take insulin and became hypoglycemic
• Committed a crime with internal state of mind

Question 13

Quick 1973

Answer 13

• D was a diabetic who took too much insulin

- As he took too much that meant it was an external cause and therefore could not use insanity defence

Question 14

R v Rabey 1997

Answer 14

• Internal and External reasoning were heavily criticised in this case
• Showing they can be controversial

Question 15

R v Coley 2013

Answer 15

• D was self-induced and believed he was in a video game and stabbed his neighbour
• Was deemed to be voluntary intoxicated and so could not claim insanity

Question 16

What can be said to describe what is meant by not knowing the nature and quality of the act?

Answer 16

• Only applies to the physical nature and quality

- There should not be a moral assessment made

Question 17

What can be said to describe what is meant by having no knowledge that the act committed was wrong?

Answer 17

• Again is not a moral question
• It is clear D knows the act was wrong if they know it is illegal and knows the conduct transgresses ordinary standards of reasonable men

Question 18

Peter sutcliffe

Answer 18

• Claimed insanity as he thought it was his duty to kill prostitutes
• He knew his conduct was illegal however as he tried so hard to conceal what he was doing.

Question 19

R v Windle 1952

Answer 19

• Killed his wife as she was suicidal and it was shown he was suffering a mental condition
• But he made a comment about how ‘they’ll hang me for this’ showing he knew his act was wrong
• Defence failed