![Other conditions?
R v Hennessey
R v Quick
Same condition, different
outcome?
D was seen getting into a stolen car
and crashed it. D had no memory as he
had taken no insulin for 3 days & was
hyperglycemic
D was charged with TWOC &
dangerous driving.
Thinking...
What problem[s] can you see arising
from these cases?
Aim to include at least one
case in your reasoning.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/insanityautom2014-140303071416-phpapp01/85/Insanity-autom2014-14-320.jpg)
![Putting the assessment objectives together…
“The law relating to the defence of insanity is outdated and unsatisfactory. Reform is long overdue in the
interests of both justice and common sense.”
Evaluate the accuracy of this statement. [50]
The following response comes
from a student in 2008. You are
going to mark it!
1.
Read it! What are your initial first
impressions?
Wide-ranging/Good/Adequate/Limited/Very limited
2.
Look at the indicative mark scheme,
and the examiners‟ comments and
annotate the answer for:
Strengths (one colour)
Weakness (one colour)
There are green pens on the front desk to
help you.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/insanityautom2014-140303071416-phpapp01/85/Insanity-autom2014-40-320.jpg)
Insanity&autom2014
- 1. Starter: What’s the word? All of you should be able to work out the words or phrases Most of you should be able to work out the connection Insanity d Diminished responsibility P Some of you should be able to explain which is the odd one out! Automatism
- 2. General Defences (2) Insanity & Automatism MAH 2014 G153
- 3. To get an idea of the scope of the defence: How does the law work in practice? 1. What was the verdict for Mr Lowe and what type of „punishment‟ did he receive? 2. What do we mean by automatism? 3. What factors were considered important in establishing whether or not he was acting in an automatistic state? 4. What is the difference between insane and non-insane automatism? 5. Why do you think the jury decided it was insane automatism (aka insanity)? 6. Look at the two cases at the end of the article. i. Why was Mr Sokell not able to successfully argue either insane or non-insane automatism? ii. Why was Mr Buck acquitted on the basis of noninsane automatism? 7. What do you learn about D and his previous behaviour?
- 4. Applying your understanding (AO2) All of you should be able to decide whether you would advise D to argue insanity or automatism as a defence. Most of you will be able to explain why, with reference to the differences between the two defences Some of you will be able to consider whether you think they would be successful in arguing it or not and why. RRvv Whoolley1970 R v Thomas 1984 Hardie 2009 Lipman 1997 D had suffered from who, dreaming him, he was had D’s girlfriend was breaking up withfeet away He was a was taken LSD andsleepwalking all his life. he the a lorry driver was when 60 that and from fighting with snakes. slow moving car in front began, gave him some of her nightmare that it. His broke into their caravan and distressed over youthsgirlfriend without warning, tohe sneeze. The He woke him find that he had killed his fought tablets to calmup todown, valium back.sneezing fit consisted of approximately He awoke to find that he had killed his of seconds. four wife.to five sneezes and lasted a couplegirlfriend by cramming eight inches of sheet down her throat. However, the tablets had a rather opposite As had stopped taking setting fire to a wardrobe. He a result he crshed into the car, causing a seven effect, resulting in him anti-depressants and othercar Insanity or seriously injuring some of the drivers. pile up and automatism? drugs before the holiday. . Insanity or automatism? Insanity or automatism? Successful or not? Successful or not? Successful or not?
- 5. Defence One: Insanity M’Naughten 1843 He was labouring under such a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that it was wrong.
- 6. What’s the outcome of a successful plea? Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Doesn‟t mean go free! What about murder? Punishment or treatment? Recent disposal reforms Are we talking about a lot of defendants?
- 7. Starter: What’s the word or phrase? Men-tall Con-dish-on deaf-fences (mental condition defences) All of you should be able to crack the code! Most of you should be able to explain what is included Some of you should be able to identify one issue with this area which we looked at last lesson! Challenge: Write up your completed starter as a brief paragraph with at least one case!
- 8. Scope of the Defence Who argues it? Strict Liability D, using medical evidence! DPP v Harper 1997 ...but be careful if you bring up any other mental condition defence... Thinking… in your purple books, pick at least one of the questions below, and produce a reasoned answer to it, using at least one statutory or common law reference. 1. As a lawyer, why might you encourage your client to plead using one of the other mental condition defences? 2. As a client, why might you not want to plead NGRI, even if you are suffering from a mental disorder? 3. Finally… is the verdict right? Some people argue that it should be „guilty but insane‟ and others that it should simply be „not guilty‟. What do you think? Why?
- 9. Element One: Defect of Reason Clarke 1972 So, is mere absentmindedness enough for a defect of reason? Why? D cannot be capable of reasoning, if he gives in to an irresistible impulse... that is not sufficient. Remember Mr Byrne? Why does D fail to successfully argue insanity? Should he?
- 10. Element Two: Disease of the Mind The key problem here is the word mind. If it was brain... this whole area would be a lot easier! Kemp CA upheld the finding, with Devlin J saying that a disease of the mind is anything which: ‚affects the ordinary faculties of reason memory and understanding.‛ So, the term „Mind‟ is not limited to brain, but includes things, both temporary and not, which cause defect of reason.
- 11. Key Case R v Sullivan 1984 1. What was the condition D was suffering from? 2. What are the facts of the case? 3. What does „disease of the mind‟ mean legally? 4. Does the impairment need to be permanent? 5. What could cause “non-insane automatism”? 6. What is the only way that the law could be changed? AO2: Is our definition of disease of the mind appropriate?
- 12. Plenary: Complete the triangle for feedback
- 13. Check you got the essentials... Complete the passage below, using what you have learnt so far about insanity. Insanity is a general defence which can be usedused in either court. If successfully argued it results which can be in either court. If successfully argued it results in the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. This by reason of insanity. Thisone of three in the of not guilty allows the judge to make allows the disposals, depending three circumstances of the case. circumstances of the case. Either a judge to make one of on thedisposals, depending on theEither a hospital order, a supervision order or an absolute discharge. The only exception is the crime of murder which exception have acrime order, a order or an absolute discharge. The only must still is the mandatory hospital order attached, if he meets the detention criteria. attached, if he meets the of which must still have a mandatory hospital order detention criteria. The defence originates from the case of M’Naughten, where the House of Lords stated that to be insane D had to be suffering the case of The defence originates from from a defect of reason, caused by the Houseof the mind, such that , where a disease of Lords stated that to either he D had to be suffering from a defect of reason, caused by a disease is wrong. This is be insanedoes not know the nature and quality of what he is doing, or that itof the mind, suchan old thattest, which puts the burden of proof on D. he does not know the and of what he is doing, or that it is . This is an old test, which puts the burden of proof on The courts have interpreted ‘defect of reason’ as a complete absence of reason. This means that . those who give in to an ‘irresistible impulse’ would not be covered by the defence. The courts have, however, interpreted ‘defect approach as a complete of disease of the mind, holding that The courts havetaken a much wider of reason’ to the meaningabsence of reason. This means that it includes give in to an affects the ‘ordinary faculties be covered by the and understanding’, those who anything that‘irresistible impulse’ would notof reason, memory defence. The courts and so including a range of much wider approach to the meaning of disease of the mind, holding that have, however, taken aphysical, treatable diseases such as arteriosclerosis and epilepsy. it includes anything that affects the ‘ ’, and so including a range of physical, treatable diseases such as arteriosclerosis and . Can you name the key cases for each of the areas of insanity we have already looked at?
- 14. Other conditions? R v Hennessey R v Quick Same condition, different outcome? D was seen getting into a stolen car and crashed it. D had no memory as he had taken no insulin for 3 days & was hyperglycemic D was charged with TWOC & dangerous driving. Thinking... What problem[s] can you see arising from these cases? Aim to include at least one case in your reasoning.
- 15. Sleepwalking: A Particular Problem for the Courts Classic approach: Burgess What implication does this have for the general population? Applying the law to murder... Lowe Is the verdict appropriate for the defendants? Coping with an absolute rule: Thomas
- 16. What about for crimes other than murder? This is where it gets a little tricky. Bilton Why was non-insane automatism allowed to go to the jury? Do you agree with the outcome of the case? Why/why not? This approach was confirmed in... Ecott
- 17. Do other countries take the same approach? Parks Luedecke Student Thinking: “The courts current response to the problem of sleepwalking is confused and unclear” True?
- 18. Element Three: Nature and Quality This quite restrictive… D is in a state of impaired consciousness or If they were conscious, D doesn‟t understand or know what they are doing …in other words, it refers to the physical nature of the offence. Why does Mr Kemp fall under this branch? Thinking & applying the law… You are paranoid and convinced that Miss Hart has been taken over by and infected by the devil. You have tried talking to me and it doesn‟t work. You know that if you leave it, my stomach and internal organs will slowly be eaten away. To save me, you decide to cut me open knowing that I might die. Do you have a defence of insanity?
- 19. Element Four: It was wrong Moral? Legal? How do we judge wrongness? Codere 1916 wrong “according to the ordinary reasonable standard adopted by the reasonable man” Windle 1952 “Acting contrary to... The law of the land.” Johnson 2007
- 20. Apply the law: Attorney General‟s Reference No.3 of 1998 D broke into a farmhouse waving a snooker cue. He was charged with aggravated burglary and gave evidence to the effect that he had gone to the house to save the occupier. The defendant believed that he was Jesus Christ, surrounded by evil and danger, and he was looking for a house with a light on because that would be a safe house where he would be protected from evil. Does he pass the test?
- 21. Are the mad laws bad? E… clearly explain your point C… link to a case and develop the argument further A… can you consider the alternative or counter point of view? Johnson 2007, makes it clear that the M’Naughten test has been consistently applied by the courts. Really only provides a defence to the fully delusional or blackout D Should juries really be making medical judgments? Reforms on disposals have opened up the plea Provides protection for the public, and a way to treat D Encompasses physical, treatable diseases. Insanity is not a term used by psychiatrists Inconsistent with the civil law and mental disorder By trial, many D are ‘sane’ in appearance 64% of males in prison have a personality disorder Numbers pleading NGRI: 1988 – 4 pleadings 1992 – 6 pleadings 2001 – 15 pleadings Evidence is that not all psychiatrists can apply the test – ‘wrong’ as moral. The other mental condition defences of diminished responsibility and automatism provide further protection
- 22. What’s the case? All of you should be able to tell me the name and/or facts of these cases Most of you should be able to identify the legal importance of the case. Some of you will be able to explain which is the odd one out?
- 23. General Defence Two: Non- Insane Automatism Unlike insane automatism, if successfully pleaded, non-insane automatism results on a complete acquittal. This is because in addition to no mens rea, it is argued that the defendant is not acting voluntarily, and so has neither element essential to criminal liability.
- 24. Enough Faffing… What is a non-insane automatistic action? Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland ‚act done by muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion, or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or sleep walking‛ Looking at the definition, what evidence can you find to justify why automatism is a defence? Can you spot the troublesome obiter? Elsewhere in Bratty, he talks about how we tell the difference between insanity and automatism. Can you remember the two ways?
- 25. Now apply it: Charlson D hit his 10 year old son on the head with a hammer and threw him out of the window and into a river. There was evidence that D had suffered a tumour which could have caused the sudden attack. Is this a case of insanity or non-insane automatism? Challenge: Denning overruled the original finding in this case. What was it, and how do you think D successfully argued it?
- 26. Other Automatistic rules… Hill v Baxter • • T Must be some medical evidence, a „mere assertion‟ is not enough • PTSD may be enough as long as it manifests itself physically. A swarm of bees or sneeze could constitute an involuntary action. • But the ratio of Narborough 2006 seems to have limited this. Confirmed in Whoolley 1997
- 27. What doesn’t automatism cover? R v Rabey “ the ordinary stresses and disappointments of life.”
- 28. Is a Partial Loss of Self-Control Enough? Attorney-General’s Reference (No.2 of 1992) 1993 1. What was the question posed to the court? 2. What were the facts of the offence? 3. Was D convicted? How do you know? 4. What is the difference between insane and non-insane automatism? Give an example for each. 5. What was the basis of the plea of automatism? 6. Which part of the Burgess test did the facts fail? 7. The report mentions four cases which are relevant. Complete the grid to show your understanding! Case Hennessey Quick Sullivan Burgess Automatism? Insanity?
- 29. Self induced automatism? This is where D does or takes something likely to bring about the automatistic state: can he still rely on the defence? Well, it depends what type of offence it is. Basic: Crime requires recklessness as minimum mens rea. R v Quick Specific: Crime can only be completed if D intends to do the offence R v Bailey
- 30. Can you apply your learning to these? R v Lipman R v Hardie All of you should be able to identify whether they can advance automatism or not. Most of you should be able to justify your conclusions using a case comment. Some of you will be able to explain how the approach of the courts here overlaps with the approach elsewhere in the law.
- 31. Have you got the essential AO1? Means? Means? Result? Result? automatism Mental condition defences Insanity
- 32. Scary triangles!: Match the little triangles to make the big ones!
- 33. Can you find the right ‘pair’? Student Task: In your hand out, you have the first half of each of these sentences... Can you match them to the end and complete the summary? Challenge: heading for the top grades? Can you evaluate your completed statement by linking to a further case?
- 37. Question 7 This was the least popular Section C question and, whilst there were some pleasing demonstrations of high level knowledge and application skills, a good number of responses were much less confident. In Statement A there was a need to focus on Sarah’s ability to retain some control whilst driving, even if not at a conscious level. In Statement B there was a need to consider the need for an involuntary act which could be demonstrated by the reflex action of swerving and the role of the spider as an external factor. Statement C relied on acknowledging that voluntary intoxication would negative a defence of automatism. In Statement D there was a need to explore the basic principles of insanity, using accurate terminology rather than that to be found in the defence of diminished responsibility.
- 38. Any areas you have put nothing for... Were you missing? Did you ask? Have you researched? The implications of pleading insanity The definition of insanity from M‟Naughten The interpretation of defect of reason The interpretation of disease of the mind What is meant by nature and quality and wrong The definition of non-insane automatism The approach of the court to self induced automatism The problems with the current law on insanity and automatism. Plenary How confident are you? I know what this is. I can describe this I can evaluate or discuss this
- 39. How does the image link to automatism?
- 40. Putting the assessment objectives together… “The law relating to the defence of insanity is outdated and unsatisfactory. Reform is long overdue in the interests of both justice and common sense.” Evaluate the accuracy of this statement. [50] The following response comes from a student in 2008. You are going to mark it! 1. Read it! What are your initial first impressions? Wide-ranging/Good/Adequate/Limited/Very limited 2. Look at the indicative mark scheme, and the examiners‟ comments and annotate the answer for: Strengths (one colour) Weakness (one colour) There are green pens on the front desk to help you.
- 41. What did you mark it as? AO1 LEVEL 5 Wide-ranging, accurate, detailed knowledge with a clear and confident understanding of the relevant concepts and principles. Where appropriate, candidates will be able to elaborate with wide citation of relevant statutes and case law LEVEL 4 Good, well-developed knowledge with a clear understanding of the relevant concepts and principles. Where appropriate, candidates will be able to elaborate by good citation to relevant statutes and case-law. LEVEL 3 Adequate knowledge showing reasonable understanding of the relevant concepts and principles. Where appropriate, candidates will be able to elaborate with some citation of relevant statutes and case-law. LEVEL 2Limited knowledge showing general understanding of the relevant concepts and principles. There will be some elaboration of the principles, and where appropriate with limited reference to relevant statutes and case-law. LEVEL 1 Very limited knowledge of the basic concepts and principles. There will be limited points of detail, but accurate citation of relevant statutes and case-law will not be expected. AO2 2125 1620 1115 6-10 1-5 Ability to identify correctly the relevant and important points of criticism, showing good understanding of current debate and proposals for reform, or to identify all of the relevant points of law in issue. A high level of ability to develop arguments, and reach a cogent, logical and well-informed conclusion. Ability to identify and analyse issues central to the question, showing some understanding of current debate and proposals for reform, or to identify most of the relevant points of law in issue. Ability to develop clear arguments and reach a sensible and informed conclusion. Ability to analyse most of the more obvious points central to the question or to identify the main points of law in issue. Ability to develop arguments and reach a conclusion. Ability to explain some of the more obvious points central to the question or to identify some of the points of law in issue. A limited ability to produce arguments based on their material but without a clear focus or conclusion. Ability to explain at least one of the simpler points central to the question or to identify at least one of the points of law in issue. The approach may be uncritical and/or unselective. 17-20 13-16 It actually received: AO1 = 18 AO2 = 16 AO3 = 4 Total: 38 (B) 9-12 5-8 1-4
- 42. Plenary: Can you sort the mental condition defences out? You have the mixed up sections for the three mental condition defences (automatism, insanity and diminished responsibility). All you need to do is sort them out into the correct defence. For each you need: Cause Example of what might be included Outcome Label Scenario Two case examples