Criminal Law Assignment: Analyzing Insanity and Automatism Defenses

This assignment analyzes a criminal law case involving Alf, who is charged with manslaughter. The case explores the potential defenses of insanity and automatism. Part 1 examines the insanity defense, applying the M'Naghten rule to determine if Alf can successfully claim it, considering his blood disorder, medication, and unconsciousness. Part 2 delves into the automatism defense, evaluating whether Alf's actions were involuntary due to his condition or medication. The analysis considers legal precedents, including Bratty v. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, R v. Clarke, R v. Kemp, and others, to determine the likely outcomes and their impact on Alf's criminal liability. The assignment assesses the burden of proof, the nature of mental disease and reasoning defects, and the requirements for both defenses, concluding with an assessment of Alf's chances of success in each defense.

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

1CRIMINAL LAW
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].

2CRIMINAL LAW
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.

3CRIMINAL LAW
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.

4CRIMINAL LAW
Prior Wrong Knowledge:
The analysis of this factor is little bit confusing. In this context ‘wrong’ indicates legal
wrong but not moral wrong as observed in R v Windle10 where defendant because of the over
dosage of aspirin medicine committed murder of his wife. Later on, he informed police and
informed that they may hang him to death due to is unlawful act. Here in this case, wrong
indicates unlawful act according to M’Naghten rules.
Application:
As per the present case, it has been observed that Alf had been suffering with rare
disease of blood disorder for which she suffered blackouts several times. He was taking
strong medicines to keep the disease under control. On the day of the incident, he woke up
and discovered that his girlfriend died. From the evidences adduced, it is seen that when he
was unconscious, he strangled her. Thus he was unaware of this. Moreover, he took
medicines as per doctor’s prescription two times. Medical evidence can indicate that whether
his unconsciousness occurred either due to overdosage of medicines or because of blood
problem. As per the discussion stated above, it is observed unconsciousness of Alf shall not
be considered as mental disease since she is suffering from blood disease and not from a
mental problem.
But, because of severe blackouts, he was unable to use his reasoning power as
entrenched in R v Clarke11. In addition to this, as he was unconsciousness, he could not
understand his act. Further, he does not know that the act to be wrong. In the instant case, the
defendant has the burden of proof. Here the chance is more than 50% that act was due to
blood disease and not overdose effect. Hence the evidence produced cannot be considered as
conclusive and so he will not be able to disprove it.
10 R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 82.
11 R v Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219.

5CRIMINAL LAW
Conclusion:
Thus, it can be inferred that Alf will not be able to succeed to claim the defence of
insanity and so will be liable for the charge he is accused of.
Part 2 answer:
Issue:
The prime issue which is to be considered here is can Alf get success when he claims
automatism.
Rules:
The defence of non-insane type of automatism if claimed by the defendant properly
will operate like an absolute defence and hence will exclude the accused from criminal
liabilities. The term ‘Automatism’ refers to an act done by any person when he was not aware
of it12. The difference of insane type of automatism with non-insane type of automatism is
that in non-insane type there is capacity to keep such mentally ill individual in hospital. It
appears only when individual person does any offence in circumstances where the act can be
considered involuntary. This defence can be used in cases of hypoglycaemia13, sneezing, post
traumatic stress and others. Non insane type of automatism cannot act a defence when it is
self induced. However, whenever the defendant pleads this defence successfully, a special
type of verdict of not being guilty due to insanity will be delivered by the court which will be
regarded as an order from hospital given to the defendant for the protection from the public.
In order to claim such defence, the main conditions that are to be satisfied are as
follows:
a) Presence of involuntary act because of reflex action or external reason.
b) Such must be absolutely non voluntary.
12 Rumbold, John. Automatism as a Defence. Routledge, 2018.
13 Marks, Vincent. "Hypoglycaemia and automatism." Medicine, Science and the Law55.3 (2015): 186-193.

6CRIMINAL LAW
c) Automatism must not be induced by oneself.
The act shall not occur from internal reason otherwise insane automatism defence cannot
be considered. This was seen in Bratty v A-G for NI14 in which court decided that epilepsy
will be considered as insanity, not automatism. Such act must be involuntary. In the case,
Lord Dennning held that walking in sleep can act as a defence of automatism. The essential
condition is that there must be absolute loss in control. In cases when the defendant has
control in his acts, he cannot be claim this defence as in such situation it will be not
automatism. This is observed in A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992)15 case where it has been stated that
driving not keeping in control will not be considered as a valid automatism defence. In this
regard, R v Kemp16 case can be referred too. In such case, the issue before the appellate court
was whether the judge during the trial directed jury properly that the insanity defence and
whether the issue of mind disease held in M’Naghten rule can apply to physical conditions
too. In this case, it is observed that arteriosclerosis had resulted loss of control where the
defendant had attacked his wife with hammer. It was considered as an internal factor and so a
mental disease. The trial judge was seen to be correct for directing jury that the proper
defence in the case is insanity and not automatism.
In addition to this, the act must not be self induced. It must be occurred due to any
external factor as entrenched in the Broome v Perkins17 case. In such case, appellant was
suffering from diabetes. He was under hypoglycemia effect because of presence of insulin in
blood and thus he was driving erratically. He claimed for automatism defence but failed. This
is because while he was driving, the driver was careful enough as he drives his car away from
vehicles in order to avoid collision or braking. Hence his claim failed and was sentenced to
conviction for careless driving.
14 Bratty v A-G for NI [1963] AC 386.
15 A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982.
16 R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399.
17 Broome v Perkins [1987] RTR 321.

7CRIMINAL LAW
Further, the automatism shall not be selfinduced as seen in R v Bailey18 case. Thus,
automatism refers to the act done by muscular control without mental ability because of
voluntary control loss and happened because of external inducement and not by himself. If
the person puts him in automatism position, such defence then cannot be claimed. If the
external factors are alcohol or any medicine, the automatism defence cannot be applied. In
such case, the defence of intoxication will apply.
It depends on the jury to decide whether the defence can be successfully claimed and that
the accused was acting in an involuntary manner due to the effect of the external factor. This
was held in R v Quick19 case. This defence was pleaded and claimed in a successful manner
whether the defendant had committed any crime as he sneezed as observed in R v Woolley20
and where he has been suffering from posttraumatic stress as observed in R v T [1990] Crim
LR 25621.
Application:
As per the present case facts, it is observed that Alf had been suffering with rare
disease of blood disorder for which she suffered blackouts several times. He was taking
strong medicines to keep the disease under control. On the day of the incident, he woke up
and discovered that his girlfriend died. From the evidences adduced, it is seen that when he
was unconscious, he strangled her. Thus he was unaware of this. Moreover, he took
medicines as per doctor’s prescription two times. Medical evidence can indicate that whether
his unconsciousness occurred either due to overdosage of medicines or because of blood
problem. As per the discussion stated above, it is observed unconsciousness of Alf shall not
be considered as mental disease since she is suffering from blood disease and not from a
mental problem.
18 R v Bailey [1983] Crim LR 353.
19 R v Quick [1973] QB 910.
20 R v Woolley [1998] CLY 914.
21 R v T [1990] Crim LR 256.

8CRIMINAL LAW
From the information of case, it is observed that as Alf is totally unconscious, total
voluntary control loss must be there. But his girlfriend died as he strangled neck of her
girlfriend. It indicated there was no control loss. But according to A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992)22,
it was absolute voluntary control loss. In addition to this, there are external causes of high
medicine dosages. There lies an involuntary action because of an external reason.
But the facts revealed that the act of medicine twice was self induced. He failed to
take it according to the directions of the concerned doctor. Thus according to R v Bailey23, the
court decided that if accused knows that act or its omission can render him uncontrollable,
aggressive or unpredictable due to which he may injure other persons and moreover he does
apply any remedies though he was aware of its necessity, the court in such cases, will have
the discretion to decide whether the accused was reckless or not. But it was not known from
the facts of the case, whether he was aware of the fact that over dose will make him
uncontrollable.
Hence, in this case, it can act as an absolute defence. The prosecution, then is needed
to prove it beyond any doubt. Further it appears from the case history, that Alf was ignorant
when he took medicine. So, he took two times not as per doctor’s prescription. Apart from
this, there lies no cause behind his black outs.
Conclusion:
Thus, it can be inferred that Alf can claim this defence successfully.
Part III:
Issue:
The issue to be discussed here that if Alf accused of murder instead of manslaughter.
22 A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982.
23 R v Bailey [1983] Crim LR 353.

9CRIMINAL LAW
Rules:
Murder means killing human being in an unlawful manner along with prior malice.
The essential ingredients of murder; actus reus and mens rea. Mens rea refers to aforethought
malice and actus reus means killing in an unlawful manner. The main difference between
murder with manslaughter depends the mind of the accused mainly. Murder denotes killing of
a human with prior malice. The express malice is applied when accused intends to kill other.
On the contrary, another category of malice is applied when a person does anything knowing
that such act may be dangerous to the life of another person causing death of the latter.
Whenever, the act comprises of mens rea as an express or implied malice, it attracts offence
of murder. It was observed in R v Vickers24 case.
On the other way, manslaughter includes no mens rea or prior malice of the accused.
In case of manslaughter, the accused had no intention to kill another. To include the non
insane type of automatism defence, the following criteria are to be satisfied; firstly, there
must be an act which is involuntary because of any external cause or reflex action. Secondly,
the act must be involuntary totally and finally, automatism cannot be self-induced. When
these criteria are not fulfilled, the said defence must not be applied.
Application:
As per the present case, it has been observed that Alf had been suffering with rare
disease of blood disorder for which she suffered blackouts several times. He was taking
strong medicines to keep the disease under control. On the day of the incident, he woke up
and discovered that his girlfriend died. From the evidences adduced, it is seen that when he
was unconscious, he strangled her. Thus he was unaware of this. Moreover, he took
medicines as per doctor’s prescription two times. Medical evidence can indicate that whether
his unconsciousness occurred either due to overdosage of medicines or because of blood
24 R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664.

10CRIMINAL LAW
problem. As per the discussion stated above, it is observed unconsciousness of Alf shall not
be considered as mental disease since she is suffering from blood disease and not from a
mental problem.
If, Alf is to be charged with the offence of murder, two main conditions are to be
proved; actus rea and mens rea; such that, Alf should possess aforethought intention to kill
his girlfriend. Unless and until the prior malice is present, none can prove the offence of
murder. On the other way, to claim the insane automatism defence, the alleged act should not
be self-induced or voluntary. The alleged act must be because of any involuntary act of the
accused because of an external cause or reflex action. When prior malafide intention is
present, the alleged act must be voluntary. This is because, when any individual has prior
malice or intention to do anything, he must be executing it in voluntary way.
Conclusion:
` Hence, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that the said defence may not
be available if Alf was charged with murder.

11CRIMINAL LAW
References:
A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982.
A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982.
Bratty v A-G for NI [1963] AC 386.
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland 1963 AC 386.
Broome v Perkins [1987] RTR 321.
Farrell, Peter T. "A Judge Views the M'Naghten Rule." The Catholic Lawyer 4.4 (2016): 4.
Queen v. M'Naghten, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 [1843].
R v Bailey [1983] Crim LR 353.
R v Bailey [1983] Crim LR 353.
R v Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219.
R v Clarke 1972 1 All E R 219.
R v Clarke 1972 1 All E R 219.
R v Codere (1916) 12 Cr App R 21.
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399.
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399.
R v Paddison [1973] QB 910.
R v Quick [1973] QB 910.
R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156.
R v T [1990] Crim LR 256.

12CRIMINAL LAW
R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664.
R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 82.
R v Woolley [1998] CLY 914.
Rumbold, John. Automatism as a Defence. Routledge, 2018.