Insanity Cases
- Created by: Amy Baron
- Created on: 13-01-13 14:35
View mindmap
- Insanity - Cases
- Epilepsy is a disease of the mind caused by an internal factor and so insanity is the appropriate defence
- R v Sullivan 1984
- Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland 1963
- Accepted and endorsed the notion of two types of automatism - insane and non-insane
- Defined: State of Automatism
- D knew that what he had done was wrong so could not come within the M'Naghten Rules
- R v Windle 1952
- R v Johnson 2007
- R v Codere 1916 - defined 'wrong' as legally, not morally
- Sleepwalking may well be a disease of the mind caused by an internal factor and so come under insanity
- R v Burgess 1991
- R v Lowe 2005
- The trial judge would not allow the defence of insanity
- R v Charlson 1955
- Defect of reason is more than temporary absent mindedness
- R v Clarke 1972
- DPP v H 1997 - indicated that insanity is only available for offences that require an element of Mens Rea therefore it is not usually available for Strict Liability
- Disease of the mind must be caused by an internal factor and so Arterioscleros is is a disease of the mind
- R v Kemp 1957
- Diabetes can be a disease of the mind caused by an internal factor and so come under insanity
- R v Hennessy 1989
- Hypoglycaemia in this case was caused by an external factor and so the appropriate defence was automatism
- R v Quick 1973
- First use of the External Factor Theory
- R v Quick 1973
- Epilepsy is a disease of the mind caused by an internal factor and so insanity is the appropriate defence
Comments
No comments have yet been made