Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
M'Naghten Rules
(Established to set law of insanity) |
1. Defect of Reason 2. Disease of the mind 3. Not knowing what D was doing or that it was wrong 'The jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the 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 he was doing what was wrong. |
|
|
Clarke 1972
(Defect of Reason) |
Ackner J said "deprived of the power of reasoning" and "Do not apply and never have applied to those who retain power of reasoning but who in moments of confusion or absent-mindedness fail to use their powers to the full". Case notes : D took items from supermarket and left without paying. Claimed to not remember and lack intention because of absent-mindedness caused by diabetes and depression. Trial judge ruled it amounted to insanity, at which point D pleaded guilty. CA quashed at it wasn't insanity; simply no mens rea |
|
|
Kemp 1957 (Disease of Mind-Legal Term, not medical) |
D suffered from hardening of veins. Restricts blood to brain, causing blackouts. During blackout hit wife with hammer. Question whether automatism or insanity. Devlin J answered "The law is not concerned with the brain but with the mind. |
|
|
Nature and Quality of the Act : 2 Famous Examples (Not knowing what D was doing or that it was wrong) |
1. If D cuts of V's head thinking is a loaf of bread. Defence of insanity allowed. 2. If D cuts of sleeping man head thinking it would be amusing to see him look for it when he wakes up, obviously insane. Insanity defence allowed. |
|
|
Windle 1952 ('Wrong' is wrong in legal view, not moral) |
D poisoned wife and upon giving himself up to police said "I suppose they will hang me for this?". Despite medical evidence for defence of insanity, he was convicted as he knew the act was illegal. THIS CASE HAS BEEN CRITICIZED. AUSTRALIA HOLDS THAT MORALLY WRONG BE ACCEPTABLE |
|
|
Kopsch 1925 (Courts reluctant to allow IMPULSE as insanity) |
Courts do not allow impulse because 1. Difficulty in distinguishing impulse caused by insanity, or rather motivated from jealousy, anger or revenge. 2. The view that the harder an impulse is to resist, the greater is the need for a deterrent. |
|
|
Quick 1973 Distinguished from Hennesy 1989 (Distinguishing Automatism from Insanity-did the defect in brain come internally) |
In Quick, D took his insulin forgot to eat, thereby causing an insulin overdose (hypoglycemia). Counted as external and thus a defence of automatism must be brought. In Hennesy, D forgot to take insulin which caused his diabetes to enter him into a state of hyerglycemia. Internally, thus defence of automatism. |
|
|
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland by Lord Denning (Non-Insane Automatism Defence) |
"Automatism is an act done by the muscles without any control of the mind" |
|
|
Broome v Perkins (Need complete destruction of control for defence of automatism) |
The appellant was a diabetic. He had driven erratically while suffering from hypo. His defence of non-insane automatism failed because of evidence that he had exercised conscious control over his car by veering away from other vehicles so as to avoid a collision and braking. His conviction for driving without undue care and attention was therefore upheld. |
|
|
R v Coley (Turning oneself into automaton with almost a purpose to do crime not allowed) (Voluntary intoxication will nullify defence of automatism) |
D dressed up as Rambo and assaulted V. Claims was under heavy cannabis use and was playing violent video-games. Court held that he was acting too purposefully. Also that he voluntarily intoxicated himself. |
|
|
Not Acceptable Conditions to Claim Non-Insane Auto |
1.Ordinary stress in life: Robey v The Queen 1980 2. Falling asleep at the wheel: Kay v Butterworth 3. If initial act voluntary which results in the act, no defence of auto. 4. Pre menstrual tension: R v Saudie Smith |
|
|
Types of situations non-insane automatism applicable |
1. Hypoglycemia: R v Quick 2. Concussion: R v Scott 3. Hypnosis and Anaesthetic: R v Sullivan (obiter) 4. Rape trauma: R v Bailey: Defendant was drowsy with drink and lover found her unconscious and hauled her to bed, her head banging on stairs. Then raped her. Defendant went to kitchen and got knife and killed him. Held that trauma of being rape made her automaton. |
