Chapter 11: General defences - Insanity

Question 1

What are general defences?

Answer 1

• General defences are defences which can be raised to most crimes including for the offence of murder
• Unlike characteristics of specific defences. General defences operate either to negate/negative an element of a crime in which the case will result in no crime,or to operate as a defence to a fully constituted crime
• It is prima facie, in that the defence being allowed, are in the hands of the judge discretion (whether to apply it or not)
• Although if the general defence negates one of the elements of a crime, discretion is not needed

Question 2

What is the point/reason of raising defence of insanity?

Answer 2

It completely negates mens rea, as the defendant lacked the mental responsibility to understand their own actions

Question 3

Why does insanity have the ability to negate mens rea?

Answer 3

It is an object under criminal law to punish those that are responsible for their actions

• But this objective cannot be fulfilled by punishing a defendant who clearly lacks the mental responsibility for their actions
• No purpose is served in deterring and blaming someone who has not acted with full mental volition
• These defences are viewed as negating mens rea. That the defendant claims that he lacked the mental capacity, because of his disorder, to understand either the nature of his actions or their consequences

Question 4

When is the time to plead the defence of insanity?

Answer 4

Before trial (at the arraignment)

• The accused is asserting incapacity to understanding the proceedings or the required plea or instruct his counsel

During the trial

• Accused assets that he did not have the mental responsibility at the time of the act

After trial (before sentencing)

• Accused is asserting that he should not be imprisoned because of his insanity

Question 5

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

Answer 5

1. Came into effect on 1 January 1992
2. Improved the position of the defendant whose fitness to plead is questioned at outset of the proceedings, and to increase the range of disposition options open to the court following the special verdict ‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’.
3. However this act doesn’t change the definition to insanity in M’Naghten Rules [1843]

Question 6

What is the evolution of fitness to plead?

Answer 6

Before

• Before, a defendant can be found to be unfit to plead before the issue of liability is investigated. This can result in a defendant being detained in a secure hospital simply on the basis of his or her unfitness to plead.

After CPA 1991

• The Criminal Procedure Act 1991 is designed to improve the situation of such defendants by requiring a court which has found a defendant unfit to plead, to continue with trial of the facts to the extent of ascertaining whether or not the defendant committed the actus reus of the offence alleged.

It developed

1. disposal
2. burden of proof

Question 7

What Act increased the scope of outcomes for insanity?

What are the 4 possible outcomes to disposal?

Answer 7

• Under Criminal Procedure Act 1991, if such a defendant is found not to have committed the actus reus, he must be acquitted
• the act increased the range of disposal options available to the courts provided the offence is not one that attracts a mandatory penalty

Disposal options

1. Supervision and treatment order
2. Guardianship order
3. Order the defendant’s admission to hospital for a limited or unlimited period
4. Discharge the defendant completely

created more methods of treating the decions

Question 8

Who bears the burden of proof? What is the burden of proof?

Answer 8

BOP lies on the defendant to satisfy on the balance of probabilities

Question 9

What type of defence is the defence of insanity - what case statest this?

Answer 9

A general defence - Can apply as a defence for all crimes of negligence and crimes of strict liability (Hennessy [1898])

Question 10

What is the 3 important substances of insanity to note?

Answer 10

1) Definition

• Laid down in M’Naghten’s Rules in 1843.
• Reaffirmed in the case of R v Sullivan (1983)

2) Presumption

• Innocence
• Sanity
• Possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for their crimes until the contrary is proven

3) Requirements

• Medical case must be adduced (R v Dickie)
• 3 elements under M’Naghten Rules must be satisfied

Question 11

What is the definition of insanity by the M’Naghten Rule?

Answer 11

‘It must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason,from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing wrong.’

reaffirmed in Sullivan

Question 12

What are the 3 elements of insanity in M’Naghten

Important

Answer 12

1. Defect of reason
2. From disease of the mind
3. Defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act; OR he knew he did it, but he did not know he was doing what was wrong about it

Question 13

What authority provides the meaning of ‘disease of the mind’?

Answer 13

A defect from some internal degenerative factor which has an organic cause

• Devlin J - ‘… The distinction between the two categories is irrelevant for the purpose of the law, which is not concerned with the origin of the disease or the cause of it but simply with the mental condition which has brought about the act…’
• A disease of the mind is not a disease of the brain
• Also mmaterial whether the disease was permanent, temporary, curable, or incurable (as long as it was present at the time)

Question 14

What is the case that supports the disease of the mind

Answer 14

R v Sullivan

Facts

1. S attacked an elderly man while suffering from an epileptic seizure

Held

1. Lord Diplock stated that obiter that a disease of the mind (internal) might not cover ‘temporary impairments’ (of the mental faculties) resulting from an external physical factor such as a blow to the head…or the (therapeutic) administration of an anaesthetic

Takeaway

• Insanity arising from external factors will not suffice

Question 15

What is the case that reaffirmed R v Sullivan

proves Sullivan right

Answer 15

R v Quick v Paddison

1. Hypoglycaemia, malfunction of the mind was an external factor, which wasn’t the disease of the mind, but automatism
2. Therefore, the general rule is that in situations where the accused’s mind was affected by certain internal factors, the defence of insanity is available to him but not if the malfunctioning of his mind is caused by external factor

Hyperglycaemia is insanity, but hypogylcaemia is automatism

Question 16

What is defect of reason?

Answer 16

It must negate the mental ability (mens rea), inability to reason or understand or memory being impared

Question 17

What is the case that supports defect of reason

Answer 17

R v Kemp [1956]

Held

• Agreed with Devlin J - “It is not labouring under a disease of the mind which produces the defect of reasoning but the paramount thing that has to be looked for is the defect of reason.”
• Defect of reason by itself could make an irrational act sufficient even though they were caused by daftness or carelessness

Takeaway

• What’s important is not disease of the mind that caused the impaired reasoning
• But mere defect of reason

Question 18

What is the difference between defect of reason and absent-mindedness

Answer 18

Defect of reason

1. Ability to make rational choices is impaired due to internal factor
2. i.e. When the mind can’t reason/make choices

Absent-mindedness

1. Merely a momentary lapse in concentration (not a good enough reason that fully negates mens rea)

Question 19

What is the case for absent-mindedness

Answer 19

R v Clarke (1972)

Facts

1. Defendant suffered from depression, but stole items from a supermarket absent-mindedly because of her depression

Held

• COA held that she was not labouring under a defect of reason as she had merely had a momentary lapse in concentration

Question 20

What are the 2 misperceptions (incorrect understanding) on the part of the defendant

3rd element

Answer 20

1. Not knowing the nature and the quality of his act;
2. Or did not know what he was doing was wrong (legally wrong)

Question 21

What case suports ‘Not knowing the nature and the quality of his act’

Answer 21

R v Codere [1916]

Test

• A person is legally sane if they know what they are doing and the physical implications of what they are doing

Facts

1. Defendant was suffering from insane delusions

Held

1. Accused did not appreciate the nature and quality of the act due to an insane delusion which made him not guilty by reason of insanity

Question 22

What is meant by ‘Defendant did not know what he was doing was wrong’?

Answer 22

The defendant misperception/not knowing what he did was legally wrong

Question 23

What case supports ‘defendant did not know what he was doing was wrong’

Answer 23

R v Windle [1952]

Facts

1. Defendant had some sort of homicidal tendencies due to the suicidal obsession of his wife to be transferred to him.
2. He gave the wife 100 aspirin tablets with fatal results and later admitted he knew what he was doing and that it was illegal. He said “I suppose they will hang me for this?”

Held

1. COA affirmed that there is no insanity here as he knew that his act is wrong, legally wrong. It is not to be said to be wrong according to the Defendant’s own moral standard or the standard of others