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;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
criticism of the M'Naughten rules |
too narrow cognitive test-moral v legally wrong Too broad on disease of the mind |
|
|
The Butler Report |
Knowledge of the law is hardly an appropriate test on which to base ascription of responsibility to the mentally disordered. It is a very narrow ground of exemption since even persons who are grossly mentally disturbed generally know that murder and arson are crimes. |
|
|
Lord Diplock in Sullivan |
It is natural to fee reluctant to attach the label of insanity to a sufferer of epilepsy. |
|
|
Lawton LJ Quick |
The law should not give the words defect of reason from disease of the mind a meaning which would be regarded with incredulity outside the court |
|
|
Art 5(1) of the ECHR and Winterwerp v Netherlands |
Allows for persons of unsound mind to be detained provided: 1) there is close correspondence between expert medical evidence and the relevant legal definition of mental disorder (bear in mind our definition comes from M'Nuaghten, an extremely old case) 2) The court's decision must be based on objective medical expertise (remember the approach in England is that it is a legal question and not a medical one) 3) The courts must be free to determine that the mental disorder is of a kind or degree which warrants compulsory confinement (now in order to impose confinement the court requires medical evidence so this is probably okay) |
|
|
Law Reform Scoping Paper 2012 |
New defence of not criminally responsible by reason of a recognised medical condition The law lags behind psychiatric understanding and this party explains why it is underused as a defence The label of 'insane' is outdated and simply wrong in some cases (e.g. those with epilepsy) Case law on insane and non-insane automatism is incoherent. |
|
|
Law Reform discussion paper |
Significant problems from a theoretical view but not so problematic in practice A person should be exempted from criminal responsibility if he or she lacked capacity to conform to the relevant law rejecting argument that insanity defence should be abolished. Mismatch between legal test and modern psychiatry is striking. |
|
|
Proposal for new defence of not criminal by reason of a recognised medical condition |
Defence would be founded on complete loss of capacity. Not all medical conditions would qualify as recognised (is this right?) Party seeking to raise defence must adduce evidence from at least two experts that at the time of the offence the defendant wholly lacked the capacity to rationally form a judgment about the relevant conduct or circumstances, to understand the wrongfulness of what he or she is charged with having done or to control his or her physical acts in relation to the relevant conduct or circumstances as a result of a qualifying recognised medical condition |
