Defence in English Law: Insanity

D believed he was being persecuted by the Tories who were to blame for misfortunes. He intended to kill the prime minister himself but killed the secretary instead. Medical witnesses testified that he was insane. He was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity. A defence of insanity must follow the M’Naghten rules; D was ‘under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing’ and if he did know it, he did not know that it was wrong.

· Insanity can only be used for crimes that require mens rea.

D charged with driving with excess alcohol- (strict liability). Magistrates acquitted him on the grounds that he was suffering from depression, a plea of insanity. The divisional courts held that the magistrates should have convicted.

· It is not enough that D fails to use his powers of reasoning; his powers of reasoning must be impaired.

Clarke (1972) (likely to come up in Unit 5)

D left without paying for goods she took form a supermarket. She claimed

Some topics in this essay:
DR M’Naghten, Lord Denning’s, Cause Theory, Intoxication- Davies, M’naghten Lords, Quick Hennessey, Lawton LJ, Supreme Court, REFORM Somnambulism, Law Commission, disease mind, plea insanity, external cause, external factor, trial judge, nature quality act, mens rea, legally wrong, special verdict, · lord, automatism ·, caused disease mind, disease mind ·, trial judge plea, judge plea insanity,