Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
LO6 - Understand the requirements of the general defences - Requirements…
LO6 - Understand the requirements of the general defences - Requirements of the defence of insanity
M'Naghten's case (1843)
meaning of "disease of the mind"
burden of proof
criticism of the criteria of the defence
every man is presumed to be sane unless the contrary proved.
"... 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."
insanity and non-insane automatism
defence of insanity will arise where D found to have been insane at the time the offence was allegedly committed.
comparison with diminished responsibility
R v Clarke (1972)
accused of theft from shop defence rested on forgetfulness and depression. Conviction quashed a failure to use powers of reasoning due to forgetfulness was not sufficient.
R v Kemp (1957)
D suffered temporary blackouts. A disease of the mind was held to be any disease affecting the ordinary mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding including arteriosclerosis. A disease of the mind can be temporary or permanent curable or incurable.
Bratty v A-G for NI (1963)
Appeal dismissed. The trial judge was correct in directing the jury as to insanity.
R v Sullivan (1984)
Epilepsy. H of L held that Epilepsy was a disease of the mind because D's mental faculties were impaired to the extent of causing a defect of reason. Irrelevant that epilepsy was an organic disease which was only intermittent.
R v Burgess (1991)
Committed offence while sleepwalking. C of A held internal factor appropriate defence was insanity.