Criminal Law: Defence of Insanity and Automatism

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

1CRIMINAL LAW
Part I:
Issue:
The issue to be discussed here is whether Alf can succeed in the defence of insanity
plus its effect on his liability.
Relevant Rules:
In criminal law, in order to ascertain whether a person alleged to commit a crime was
insane or sane during commission of such crime and so liable for the crime, a test called
M’Naghten rule is applied1. This rule was given in the case of M'Naghten [1843]2. It is a test
of criminal insanity. When the tests given by the rules are complied with, such defendant may
be adjudicated to be not guilty due to insanity or insane though guilty. The sentences of these
cases may be discretionary or mandatory.
Sanity is regarded as a presumption that can be rebuttable and the burden of proving it
lies on the party who denies it. If the defendant makes a defence of insanity for his acts, the
prosecution can bring evidence of insanity. It was given in the case of Bratty v Attorney-
General for Northern Ireland3. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
When the burden is properly discharged, the party who relies on it will succeed in the case.
The main issue the court will take into account is whether the defendant is aware of
his act and if he is aware, whether he knows whether it is wrong. In this regard, four criteria
are to be considered to analyze whether defence of insanity is applicable or not. The rules or
criteria that are formulated form a standard test to analyze criminal liability in reference to
mentally disabled accused persons in common law jurisdictions with some changes. They are
as follows:
1 McBride, Mark. "Knowledge and Insanity." International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue
internationale de Sémiotique juridique 30.4 (2017): 625-636.
2 M'Naghten [1843] UKHL J16.
3 Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland 1963 AC 386.

2CRIMINAL LAW
Disease of mind:
As per the general rules of interpretation, whether a mental condition amounting to a
mind disease is a legal matter instead of a medical cause in question is to be determined. In
this regard, references of landmark cases may be taken. In R v Kemp4 case, it is seen that
hardening of arteries of nerves or arteriosclerosis resulted into losing of control when the
defendant was attacking his wife by the use of hammer. It was an internal condition and
hence a mind disease. In R v Sullivan5 case, defendant during an epileptic attack caused
grievously bodily harm. The court decided in this case that epilepsy is an internal condition
and a mind disease. In another R v Paddison6 case, the accused assaulted during the state of
hypoglycaemia caused due to intake of insulin, the alcohol consumed and not eating properly.
The court held that the judge must leave the automatism defence.
Defect of reason:
For determining the presence of insanity, it has to be seen that the accused is suffering
from defect of reasoning. Absent mindedness or just forgetfulness is not enough. This can be
discussed in the light of R v Clarke7. In this case, Mrs Clarke absent mindfully kept a jar of
coffee, mincemeat and butter in bag while she was in a supermarket. During her trial, medical
evidence showing that she was undergoing depression and was diabetic was shown. It was held
by the judge in the trial court that it raised insanity defence. Then she changed her plea of guilty
and then appealed against the insanity findings of the judge. It was held that short period of
absent mindedness does not amount to defect of reason.
Not being aware of the nature and quality of his act:
The defect in reasoning must be of such nature that the defendant must not realise what he
was doing actually or even if he knew, he did not know that such act was wrong. When the
4 R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399.
5 R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156.
6 R v Paddison [1973] QB 910.
7 R v Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219.

3CRIMINAL LAW
defendant knew that he was performing unlawful acts, defence of insanity will not be available as
given in R v Coder 8 case.
Knowledge of wrong:
Its interpretation is controversial. Here ‘wrong’ was meant legal wrong instead of
moral wrong as seen in the case of R v Windle9. In this case, the defendant due to over
dosage of aspirin murdered his wife and then called police and said that they might hang
him. It was decided that the insanity defence cannot be used here because he knew that he
was doing unlawful acts. Here wrong meant to be unlawful as per rules of M’Naghten.
Application:
In the given case study, it appears that Alf is suffering with a rare disorder in blood
due to which she suffered from severe blackouts. He was under powerful medication to
combat with such disorder. One fine morning, he woke up and found that his girl friend was
strangled to death. From the evidences, it was revealed that during unconsciousness, Alf
strangled her. Hence he was not aware of his act. He further consumed dosage prescribed by
his doctor twice. The medical evidence could specifically point out whether his absence of
consciousness resulted because of effect of over dose of medicines or due to disorder in
blood. From the discussion made above, it is seen that Alf’s unconsciousness cannot be
regarded as a mind disease as he was suffering from disorder in blood and not a mental
disorder.
However, due to severe of blackouts, he was not capable to exercise his power of
reasoning as per R v Clarke10. Moreover, due to unconsciousness, he was unable to know the
nature of his act and he did not know that his act was wrong. Here in this case, the burden of
proof is on the defendant depending on the balance of probabilities. Here more than 50 percent
8 R v Codere (1916) 12 Cr App R 21.
9 R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 82.
10 R v Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219.