Criminal - Insanity

Front 1

Fitness to be Tried

Back 1

s. 4(2) Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, 2006: an accused person shall be deemed unfit to be tried if he or she is unable by reason of mental disorder to understand the nature or course of proceedings so as to
i. plead;
ii. instruct a lawyer;
iii. elect for trial by jury;
iv. make a proper defence;
v. challenge a juror;
vi. understand the evidence.

Old position in State (C) v The Minister for Justice (1976)

Front 2

The M’Naghten Test =

Back 2

i. Presumption of sanity until the contrary is proved;
ii. Was the Def, at the time of commission, under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind that (a) he did not know the nature and quality of his act, or (b) if he did know its nature, he did not know it was wrong?

Front 3

R v. M’Naghten (1843)

Back 3

Def murdered PM’s Private Secretary, having intended to kill the PM himself; he believed that the Tory Party was persecuting him; the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity caused public disquiet; the HL (legislature) asked the Law Lords questions, the answers to which provided the principles for the insanity defence:

i. Presumption of sanity until the contrary is proved;
ii. Was the Def, at the time of commission, under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind that (a) he did not know the nature and quality of his act, or (b) if he did know its nature, he did not know it was wrong?

Front 4

Bratty v. AG for NI (1963)

Back 4

Def murdered a girl by strangling her with a stocking; he claimed to have had a “blackness”; evidence showed psychomotor epilepsy; Denning was satisfied that this constituted a disease of the mind.

Front 5

R v. Kemp (1957)

Back 5

Def attacked his wife with a hammer following congestion of blood in arteries; remembered nothing; Prsc argued no brain cell damage, so no disease of the brain; court rejected this – disease of the mind is relevant, not of the brain; thus, mental faculties such as reasoning and memory are relevant. Allowed the defence of insanity to be raised.

Front 6

R v. Sullivan (1984)

Back 6

Diplock L.J. reiterated the focus on mental faculties – reason, memory, understanding – loss of these, however brief and regardless of recurrence, constitutes insanity for the purposes of criminal liability.

The defendant was an epileptic who had attacked a man during a fit.

Front 7

R v. Codere (1916)

Back 7

The element of M'Naughten as relating to a defendant "not know[ing] the nature and character of his act" was held to refer to the physical nature of the act, not its legal or moral character.

Front 8

R v. Dickie (1984)

Back 8

The rule refers to the actual act, not its consequences – so the Def, who had not appreciated that setting fire to a waste-paper basket was dangerous, still knew he was setting alight, and thus could not rely on the defence.

Front 9

People (AG) v. Hayes (1967)

Back 9

Henchy J. referred to understanding the nature and quality as opposed to knowing it, thus implying that the test here refers also to the consequences of the act.

Henchy J. held that “wrong” in this context meant both immoral and illegal; English case law, by contrast, suggests illegality is the only issue; Australian case law suggests a definition involving the perception of a reasonable man – this is possibly the clearest test.

Front 10

Doyle v. Wicklow County Council (1974)

Back 10

Facts: 17-year-old set fire to the Pl’s abattoir; to recover compensation, the Pl had to show that an offence had been committed; the Def raised insanity, based on medical evidence showing that he had a mental disorder.

Decision: the SC held that the M’Naghten rules are not the only basis for the defence in this jurisdiction. Pointed out that some medically insane people can know both (i) nature of act, and (ii) that it was wrong, but still not exercise volition in committing it due to their insanity. This broadening of the defence also encompasses the state known as “irresistible impulse”.

Front 11

Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006

Back 11

s. 5(1): legislative base for the common law defence – special verdict possible where the accused had a mental disorder and (a) did not know the nature of his act, or (b) did not know that his act was wrong, or (c) was unable to refrain from committing the act.
s. 1: “mental disorder” includes mental illness, mental disability, dementia, or any disease of the mind, but does not include intoxication.

s. 5(2) and (3): special verdict plus the court’s belief that a person has a mental disorder under the Mental Health Act 2001 allows court to commit the Def to a designated centre for 14 days; possibility of extension up to 6 months; approved medical officer prepares a report confirming or denying the mental disorder; if committal is recommended, the court shall order this until a s. 13 order is made.

Diminished responsibility – a defence under English statute – was often found not to be a defence here. But now, under s. 6(1), the defence is available if (a) guilty; (b) mental disorder; (c) not within the definition of insanity, but substantially diminished responsibility. Onus to prove diminished responsibility is on Def. Effect: murder is reduced to manslaughter.

Front 12

Diminished responsibility

Back 12

Diminished responsibility – a defence under English statute – was often found not to be a defence here. But now, under s. 6(1), the defence is available if (a) guilty; (b) mental disorder; (c) not within the definition of insanity, but substantially diminished responsibility. Onus to prove diminished responsibility is on Def. Effect: murder is reduced to manslaughter.

Front 13

Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 s. 5(2) and (3)

Back 13

s. 5(2) and (3): special verdict plus the court’s belief that a person has a mental disorder under the Mental Health Act 2001 allows court to commit the Def to a designated centre for 14 days; possibility of extension up to 6 months; approved medical officer prepares a report confirming or denying the mental disorder; if committal is recommended, the court shall order this until a s. 13 order is made.

Front 14

Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 S.1 - Definitions

Back 14

s. 1: “mental disorder” includes mental illness, mental disability, dementia, or any disease of the mind, but does not include intoxication.

Front 15

State (C) v The Minister for Justice (1976)

Back 15

Dalaigh CJ stated the test for fitness to plead as being whether the accused has "sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings of the trial, so as to make a proper defence, to challenge a juror to whom he may wish to object, and to understand the details of the evidence" .

Front 16

Defect of reasoning - two forms

Back 16

1. Accused did not know the nature and quality of the act or

2. That, if he/she did know the nature and quality, that he/she did not know that it was wrong.

Front 17

R -v- Burgess (1991)

Back 17

Sleepwalking also found to be a disease of the mind.

Front 18

R -v- Quick (1973)

Back 18

Defendant was diabetic, took too much insulin and reduced blood sugar beyond normal levels.

Committed an assault in this state, Court found that this was an external factor, and the appropriate defence was one of automatism.

Front 19

R -v- Hennessy (1989)

Back 19

Blood sugar level was inordinately high owing to diabetes only.

Court found that this was a purely internal factor, such that insanity was the appropriate defence.