Legal insanity - Denials of Offences

M’Naghten provides a test for legal insanity, there are two components for the test. What are the two components?

1. disease of the mind

2. defect of reason

What are the two components for ‘defect of reason’ under the M’Naughten test? (one of the components must be fulfilled to satisfy the test for legal insanity according to R v Keal)

R v Keal stated that D must prove that -

1. D doesn’t know the nature and quality of his act OR

2. D doesn’t know what he did was BOTH unlawful and morally/legally wrong

Usually there is a presumption of sanity, can it be displaced if the following two criterias are met within M’Naghten?

Yes, this presumption can be displaced.

R v Sullivan on the presumption of sanity, what is the context and outcome?

Context → S had epilesy, then he had a seizure and had kicked a person, committing ABH and he was charged under OAPA. Instead of pleading insanity, he pled sane automatism.

Outcome → Court concluded that epilepsy was a disease of mind and therefore he would ONLY be able to use the insanity plea.

Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland on the presumption of sanity, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D stranged V with tights. He felt ‘some darkness come over him.’

Outcome → Court concluded that automatism is ‘an action without any knowledge of acting or with no consciousness of doing what was done’

• psychomotor epilespy is a disease of the mind, therefore can only plead insanity plea

R v Kemp on the presumption of sanity being displaced + ‘disease of the mind’, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D had killed his wife and attacked her for no reason. He had a condition of restricting the flow of blood to his breain causing unconsciousness. He argued that it wasn’t a insanity plead since it had nothing to do with the abnormality of his brain.

Outcome → The court concluded that the insanity plea is available even if it is a condition of the brain of not, or curable or incurable. Physical and mental conditions are subject to insanity pleas.

Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland on the presumption of sanity being displaced + ‘disease of the mind’, what is the context and outcome?

This case confirmed R v Kemp that the ‘disease of the mind’ is used in the ordinary sense of mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding

R v Burgess on the presumption of sanity being displaced + ‘disease of the mind’, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D hits V with video recorder whilst sleepwalking.

Outcome → Court concluded sleepwalking leads to insanity plea, rejects that it is sane automatism or an external cause.

• If the instance repeats itself again, it would be disease of the mind and be an insanity plea

• even if there isn’t danger of reoccurring, still a disease of the mind

R v Hennessey on the presumption of sanity being displaced + ‘disease of the mind’, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D charged with taking someone’s car without consent and drove while disqualified. D claimed he didn’t take insulin for diabetes due to stress.

Outcome → Diabetes capable of taking insanit plea, since pancreas produce insulin which impacts the mind, this is internal - therefore, disease of the mind

• external factors of depression, anxiety or stress doesn’t prevent the pancrea from not producing insulin, so it is insanity

R v Quick on the presumption of sanity being displaced + ‘disease of the mind’, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D takes his insullin injection, but fails to eat afterward.

Outcome → This is eligible for sane automatism. Injecting insulin is an external application for automatism (diabetes would be internal, subject to insanity)

R v Smith on the presumption of sanity being displaced + ‘disease of the mind’, what is the context and outcome?

This is a case which outlined pre-menstrual syndrome would amount to insanity plea.

R v Clarke on the ‘defect of reason’, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D was in a supermarket. She had shoplifted, it was argued her depression caused absent-mindedness and confusion. D plead insanity.

Outcome → Court outlined it wasn’t a defect of reason within the rules and absent-mindedness can amount to insanity

R v Sullivan on the ‘defect of reason’ and the 1st component of the R v Keal test (D doesn’t know the nature and quality of his act), what is the context and outcome?

R v Sullivan stated that it means ‘he doesn’t know what he’s doing’, providing examples such as -

• D slicing V thinking he was slicing a loaf

• D shoots V thinking he’s playing a video game

R v Windle on the ‘defect of reason’ and the 2nd component of the R v Keal test (D doesn’t know what he did was legally wrong), what is the context and outcome?

Context → D suffering from insanity, killed his insane wife and said ‘suppose they’ll hang me for this’. D knew it was legally wrong.

Outcome → There was no insanity plea, since D knew he was legally wrong

• You can ONLY plead insanity if you don’t know what you were doing was wrong

Peter William Coonan on the ‘defect of reason’ and the 2nd component of the R v Keal test (D doesn’t know what he did was legally wrong), what is the context and outcome?

Context → D knew his act was contrary to the law, despite having schizophrenia

Outcome → He didn’t receive a insanity plea

R v Johnson on the ‘defect of reason’ and the 2nd component of the R v Keal test (D doesn’t know what he did was legally wrong), what is the context and outcome?

Context → J stabbed V, J knew what he was doing was wrong when he stabbed. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and suffering from it during the attack.

Outcome → Insanity was not available to D because he knew what he was doing was legally wrong

R v Keal on the ‘defect of reason’ and the 2nd component of the R v Keal test (D doesn’t know what he did was legally wrong), what is the context and outcome?

Context → D was charged with attempted murder of his parents and grandmother. D claimed he was insane at the time and acted on delusions such as being possessed. He apologised and knew it was wrong.

Outcome → He knew it was wrong, so it wasn’t a defect of reason so no insanity plea.