Law - Insanity and Automatism

!1qQ
So, as you've probably guessed from the title, this blog is about insanity and automatism.

Insanity is defined as when D (the defendant) suffers from 'a defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind. Also, D has can't know EITHER the nature & quality of the act OR that it's wrong'. If they meet 3 of the 4 branches, they are insane. YAY! That means they will receive a disposal measure like a hospital order.

It comes from the 1843 case of M'Naughten (the spelling is messed up). He was a Scottish woodturner who thought Tories were out to get him so he decided to try and kill the PM of the time, Robert Peel. Instead he shot the PM's private secretary and killed him. He argued insanity successfully and, because the rules of the time allowed it, received a complete acquittal. This provoked a national outcry so they locked him up in Bedlam. So there you go.

Now you get a nice special verdict 'Not Guilty by reason of Insanity [NGRI] and some hospital orders that, ideally, will reflect your condition.

Difference between insanity and automatism? - Insanity is caused by an internal factor and is therefore likely to happpen again. Automatism is an external factor and is therefore likely to be a one-off.

Element 1 - Defect of Reason - Clarke - something that impairs the mind.
Element 2 - Disease of the Mind - Sullivan, Quick, Kemp - a disease.
Element 3 - Nature + Quality of act - Burgess
Element 4 - Wrong - Windle - can't know that the act is wrong.


If you meet the first 2 and any one of the last two, you are legally insane.

Cases - M'NAUGHTEN, Clarke, Sullivan, Quick, Kemp, Windle, Burgess

AUTOMATISM

Legally defined as 'an action done by the body, without control of the mind' (Bratty).

This is where D argues that an external factor caused them to commit an offence.

So Bratty defines this. In Bratty, D picked up a hitchhiker, fell into an epileptic whatever and woke to find he'd strangled her with her own tights. Nice.

So it has to be an external cause and you have to be COMPLETELY taken over by the automatism.

Self-induced automatism as in Bailey is generally not allowed.

BUT if it has a different effect like in Hardie and Lipman, it maybe allowed.

Cases:
Parks
Rabey - everyday disappointments of life (e.g. heartbreak) are NOT enough
^^ - both Canadian cases. Consistently approved of in GB courts.
Bratty
Hardie
Lipman
Bailey
AG Ref. No 2 of 1992 - lorry driver, went onto hard shoulder and killed breakdown woman.


AO2 - Insanity - this includes diseases like diabetes, arteoscholorisis (or however you spell it)and epilepsy. How can you hold them to the same standard as mad people?
If they are found guilty they get hospital orders - how will this help?

The medical and legal definitions of insanity are NOT the same. Since M'Naughten, medical knowledge of insanity has advanced A LOT. Many people feel the two need to be realigned. Unfair to deem diabetics insane - put in same group as insane people.
Will also keep the law up to date and contemporary.


Automatism
AO2 - should encompass cases of diabetes. Unfair to differentiate between hypo and hyper? One insane and the other automatistic - how is that fair?

Should bring out law more into line with Canada's - a lot more functional and fair.

What else? Automatism, if argued successfully, results in a COMPLETE acquittal. Insanity, a disposal method. UNFAIR!

SO there's Insanity and Automatism. Hope I remember all this for the exam!1

Think I'd like duress as an exam Q. That's the one I'm the most worried about.

But yes...time will tell. I just gotta learn ALL the rest.