Insanity

• Act?


  The Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 allows a court to make the decision that D is 'unfit to plead' eg mental state means they're unable to be tried. In this instance, the court will deal with D as if they had been found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'
• Current rules come from?

  M'Naghten 1843, this is very old and our understanding has changed massively in the modern day. Involved the attempted killing of the PM but D ended up killing the secretary. D was insane and this case is crucial for the M'Naghten rules that developed as a result of it and are still used today
• The jury is told what?

  Every person is presumed to be sane and is presumed to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction
• What is the proof?

  Insanity has a reverse onus of proof, meaning the burden of proof is on the defence and not the prosecution
• M'Naughten Rules?


  Insanity defence. D must have a 'defect of reasoning' arising from a 'disease of mind' so that he didn't know what he was doing or that it was wrong. These rules are now binding precedent. If the defence is afforded a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' is given and leave D under the control of the court. The 4 elements include: a 'defect of reason', a 'disease of mind', so he didn't know what he was doing, or that it was wrong.
• 1. Defect of reason


  Clarke established defect of reason to be something more permanent or a complete lack of mental capacity than short periods of absentmindedness etc. D plead guilty as didn't want to be called 'insane'.
• 2. Disease of mind

  Any disease which produces a malfunctioning of the mind is a disease if the mind for the purposes of the defence. It needn't be a disease of the brain but covers any INTERNAL disorder, which results in violence and is likely to recur. Kemp tried for automatism but the hardening of the arteries was deemed a 'disease of the mind' within the M'Naghten rules so automatism couldn't be afforded. Sullivan's judge ruled that the defence for an epileptic seizure was insanity not automatism. So internal conditions (even if not affecting brain, just body)= insanity
• Insanity v Automatism

  • Hennessey- the hyperglycaemic state was cause by the diabetes itself and not an outside factor of injection of insulin therefore it was insanity
  • Quick- the opposite, his state was caused by the external factor of insulin not the diabetes itself
  • Diabetes= insanity if no insulin had been taken so no external factors were involved
  • Taking insulin= external= automatism
• The automatic state of diabetes, distinguished?

  • Caused by the disease itself which causes high levels of blood sugar (hyperglycaemia, insanity)
  • Caused by the drug insulin being taken which controls the levels of blood sugar. If after taking it D fails to eat the blood sugar will become too low (hypoglycaemia, automatism)
  • Important because taking insulin= external and walk free, if it's failure to then you're insane
• Bratty?

  Defence of automatism rejected, directed to insanity even on appeal because psychomotor epilepsy is an internal condition
• Burgess?


  Sleepwalker, D, received a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. D appealed that the judge should've allowed automatism but it was dismissed. There was an abnormality due to an internal factor which had manifested itself in violence and which might recur. This case was important to return a verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' rather than automatism because automatism is a full defence and D would walk free but insanity means D will get treatment/ locked up
• 3. Nature and quality of the act

  The 'defect of reason' arising from a 'disease of mind' so that D didn't know what he was doing or that it was wrong refers to knowing the act was legally wrong not morally wrong. This is referred to as the nature and quality of the act. In Windle although it was acknowledged D was suffering from a mental illness he said to the police 'I suppose they will hang me for this' so he was aware of what he was doing.
• Are insane illusions covered by the defence?

  No- they were asked in M'Naghten and emphasised that delusions, which don't prevent D from having mens rea, will afford no defence. If the accused knows that his act is forbidden by law it's clear he's liable (Bell)
• Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to plead) Act 1991?

  Where there is a life sentence imposed for the offence (murder) the court must make a hospital order restricting discharge without limitation of time. In any other case the court can make a hospital order and an order restricting discharge either for a limited or unlimited period of time or in appropriate circumstances: a guardianship under the Mental Health Act, a supervision and treatment order, or an order for absolute discharge.