Mental Capacity Defences Insanity Automatism Insanity a full

Mental Capacity Defences Insanity Automatism

Insanity… a full defence • M’Naghten case 1843 • at the time of the offence d was suffering from • 1. a defect of reason • 2 caused by a disease of the mind, • 3. as to not 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 • 1. Defect of Reason powers of reasoning must be impaired not just a failure to use powers of reasoning ( not moments of confusion or absentmindedness) Clarke 1972

2. Caused by a disease of the mind. . • The defect of reason must be caused by a disease of the mind (not a medical term) Must be an internal cause Kemp 1957 Sullivan 1984 • Burgess 1991 • Diabetes Hyperglycaemia (High blood sugar level) • Hennessy 1989 Hypoglycaemia (this is an external cause and therefore not insanity) • (low blood sugar levels due to insulin), Quick 1973

• Where d voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance and this cause a psychotic episode , insanity is not available • Coley 2013

3. As not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing • Covers the physical nature: • he is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness • he is conscious but due to his mental condition does not know what he is doing eg nurse threw baby on fire believing it to be a piece of wood! • Windle 1952 • Oye 2013

The special verdict 1991 • not guilty by reason of insanity (NGBRI) • Sentence can be; hospital order, guardianship order, treatment order or absolute discharge • If on a murder charge the judge must impose an indefinite hospital order

AUTOMATISM • • • 2 types Insane automatism where the cause is a disease of the mind within the M’Naughten rules Non insane automatism AR not voluntary and lack of MR the cause must be external Eg blow to the head, swarm of bees, sneezing effect of drug etc….

1. An involuntary movement of the muscles • Definition • An act done by the muscles without any control of the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing. Bratty 2. There must be evidence Hill v Baxter 1958

3. A total loss of control • cannot be partial AG ref 1993 R v Issit • 4. Cannot be self induced • Where d knows that his conduct is likely to produce automatic state • Bailey 1983 • If the offence is one of specific intent eg murder then this can be a defence (no mens rea)

Basic intent crimes • If caused through drink or illegal drugs cannot use the defence • If d is reckless in getting into the state of automatism cannot be a defence • BUT if d does not realise that actions are likely to lead to a self induced state then may have a defence • Hardie 1984

5. It is an external factor • Sexsomnia R v Bilton • Sneezing fit Woolley • Diabetes (if external) Quick • PTSD R v T