Criminal Law: Insanity Defence, Automatism Defence, Murder vs Manslaughter

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

CRIMINAL LAW1
Part I:
Issue:
The instant part of the case study deals with the issue of whether Alf can succeed to
claim the insanity defence.
Rules applicable:
In the field of Criminal law, to analyse whether any person who was charged of
committing crime was sane or insane while committing that crime and hence responsible for
the alleged offence, a test known as M’Naghten rule1 is used. The test has its root in Queen v.
M'Naghten2 case. The objective behind it is to impose limitation on the insanity defence to
cognitive insanity which is an inability to differentiate between right and wrong. Insanity can
act as a general defence against any alleged crime. When the accused is insane, judges must
give decision of ‘not guilty due to insanity’. The insanity defence is to be raised by the
prosecution side. Insanity of the accused can be considered at three different stages; insanity
prior starting of trial, insanity while the offence is committed and unfit to plead due to
insanity. The doubt regarding insanity during the commission of the alleged offence is
usually interpreted by applying the M’Naghten rules.
According to the rules of M’Naghten, it is to be proved that during the commission of
the alleged offence, the accused had been suffering from the following:
 The defect in reasoning,
 Such defect in reasoning has to be caused by any mind disease,
 Such reasoning defect should be such category that alleged accused is not aware of
what he does, or even he knows it, he had no knowledge that particular act is wrong.
1 Farrell, Peter T. "A Judge Views the M'Naghten Rule." The Catholic Lawyer 4.4 (2016): 4.
2 Queen v. M'Naghten, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 [1843].

CRIMINAL LAW2
When all these are followed, such accused may be declared not guilty due to insanity
or insane in spite of being guilty. The decisions of these cases can be discretionary or
even mandatory depending on the facts of each case.
Sanity can be considered as an assumption that can be rebutted and the burden to
prove it is to be done by the party who denies such insanity. When the defendant raises the
insanity defence for his offence, prosecution has to disprove it. This was laid down in the
decision given by Lord Denning in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland3 case
which states that when the defendant raises a concern regarding his mind state, prosecution
side may bring the insanity evidence. In another case of R v Clarke4, where the defendant
was charged with shoplifting argued that she does not possess any mens rea as she left the
shop not paying as she was suffering from depression. Accused pleaded guilty during trial.
However, on appeal, it was ruled by the court that she was denying the mens rea instead of
raising defence and hence her sentence of conviction was set aside. Standard of proof lies on
balancing probabilities. If the burden is executed in a proper manner, the party who claims it
will be able successful in such case.
The prime concern that will be taken into discussion by the court is whether accused
knows about the consequences of his act, whether he has knowledge whether it is right or
wrong. four factors are to be considered in this aspect, to determine whether the insanity
defence is applicable or not applicable. These factors are used to analyse the criminal liability
of a mentally disabled accused person in the jurisdiction of common law with some
modifications. These factors are discussed below:
3 Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland 1963 AC 386.
4 R v Clarke 1972 1 All E R 219.

CRIMINAL LAW3
Mind disease:
According to interpretation rules, whether any mental character amounts to a mental
disease or not legal issue or any medical reason is to be identified first. To understand it,
decisions given in remarkable cases must be referred. In R v Kemp5, it is observed that
arteriosclerosis or the hardening of nerves’ arteries had led into loss of control due to which
the defendant with the help of hammer attacked his wife. This was considered as an internal
condition and thus a mental disease. Another similar type of case was R v Sullivan6, where
the accused during an attack due to epilepsy grievously bodily harmed the victim. The court
observed that it was considered as an internal matter and thus it is a mental disease. Another
case of R v Paddison7 shows that the accused was suffering from hypoglycaemia due to
insulin intake, consuming alcohol, not having food and during which he assaulted. The court
decided that the judge should not consider the defence of automatism.
Reasoning defect:
In order to claim insanity, the accused shall suffer from reasoning defect. Absent
minded act or forgetfulness is not enough to claim it. This was discussed in R v Clarke8.
Not knowing the nature of the act:
The reasoning defect must of such type that the alleged accused shall not understand
what he is doing or even though he knew, the accused must not be knowing that he was
acting in a wrong way. If the accused knows that he is acting in an unlawful way, the insanity
defence cannot be availed as observed in R v Codere9.
5 R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399.
6 R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156.
7 R v Paddison [1973] QB 910.
8 R v Clarke 1972 1 All E R 219.
9 R v Codere (1916) 12 Cr App R 21.