9/14/2023 0 Comments Current instanity defense law![]() ![]() The disease of the mind must cause a defect of reason so that the defendant either did not know the nature and quality of their act or did not know that what they were doing was wrong. The M’Naghten rules only require a defendant to be insane at the time of committing the act. ![]() In other words the law takes the view that it is possible for a person to be sane most of the time but suffer bouts of insanity. It is also a good example of how, in law, a person can be temporarily insane. The case is illustrates how the test of insanity is legal and not medical, as a diabetic would not in most circumstances be considered insane. The defendant was, at the material time, insane. Hyperglycaemia caused by the lack of insulin was a disease of the mind within the M’Naghten rules. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s ruling. The defendant then changed his plea to guilty and appealed against the trial judge’s ruling on insanity. The judge was of the opinion that this was a disease of the mind within the M’Naghten rules and that the defendant was insane. He claimed that as a result of all this, he did not know what he was doing and so did not have the requisite mens rea. He was a diabetic who, despite needing to take insulin every day, had not done so for two or three days before the incident. In R v Hennessy (1989), the defendant was charged with taking a vehicle without consent. It was irrelevant whether the disease was one recognised medically as a mental disease. The court held that, whichever medical opinion was accepted, the disease was one capable of affecting the defendant’s mind, and so was a disease of the mind within the M’Naghten rules. There was a difference of medical opinion about how much this disease affected his mind. In R v Kemp (1956), the defendant suffered from arteriosclerosis. The judiciary has, over the years, considered various mental states when dealing with the question of a disease of the mind. For the courts, the question of insanity is decided as a matter of law according to the ordinary rules of interpretation, procedure and evidence. There is a difference between being legally insane and medically insane. Elements of the defence Disease of the mind ![]() In practice, the defence is now generally only pleaded when an accused is charged with murder and even then, rarely. Under s 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, following a successful defence of insanity, the court can order the accused be admitted to a hospital, or make a guardianship, supervision or treatment order, or order an absolute discharge. The defence is only available to defendants charged with offences that require mens rea, ie, crimes which are not strict liability offences ( DPP v H (1997)). If the defence is successful, then under s 2(1) of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, the verdict to be returned by the jury is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. It is usually a matter for counsel for the defence to raise the issue of insanity, though in R v Dickie (1984) it was held that the trial judge may raise the issue and leave it to the jury, after consideration of all the evidence, to decide whether the accused is insane. The defence is proved on a balance of probabilities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |