• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/5

Click to flip

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;

5 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Codere (nature and quality)

D must show that he did not know what he was doing or that he did not appreciate the consequences of his act

R v windle (act was wrong)

wrong means legally and not morally wrong.


There is no doubt that in the M'Naughten rules, 'wrong' menas contrary to law.


D convicted of murdering wife who had been talking of committing suicide. D discussed this with his work mates who told him to give her a dozen aspirins and get it over with. He gives her 100 aspirins and she took them and died. There was evidence that D was suffering from communicative insanity however when arrested by the police he said 'I suppose I'll hang for this' suggesting he knew his action was legally wrong and so could not plead insanity.

R v Johnson (act was wrong)

D charged with wounding with intent. He had been known to suffer delusions and hallucinations. on the day in question he took a knife and stabbed the victim 4 times. After the arrest he was examined by 2 psychiatrists who diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia but both agreed at the time of offence he knew what he was doing was against the law but one suggested he did not know it was morally wrong. Suggestion that the law could be extended to include acts which D knew were legally wrong but thought to be morally justified.

MacKay's studies (act was wrong)

studies show that the courts/juries are returning special verdicts in cases where the accused knew his act was legally wrong but did so due to delusions which caused him to believe it was morally right.

R v Oommen (Canada) (act was wrong)

It was held that if the accused believes his act to be right according to the ordinary standards of reasonable men the defence of insanity was available to them even if he knows the act was illegal.