MENTAL DISORDER DEFENCES

MENTAL DISORDER DEFENCES

INSANITY

Disease of the mind which caused a defect of reasoning which makes D not to know the nature and quality of his act.


No purpose is served in deterring and blaming someone who clearly lacks mental responsibility for his actions. Denial of mens rea defences. A defendant who claimed to be insane must first be judge fit to plead or stand trial. A successful plea of sane automatism will lead to acquittal while that of insane automatism will lead to a) compulsory committal to psychiatric institution for indefinite detention; b) release under supervision and discharge from 1991. M'Nagthen rule. Every person is sane and answerable for his crime unless otherwise proven.

Disease of the mind is a legal question and not medical one and the leading case is Sullivan (1984) AC. Lord Diplock clarifies meaning of insanity as follows:

a) As stated in Bratty (1963) should be understood in ordinary meaning of mental facilities of reasoning, memory and understanding and impairment to these facility is insanity.

b) Causes of the disease and whether organic (epilepsy) or functional are not important

DEFECT OF REASONING

Disease of the mind must cause impairment of facility of reasoning, memory or understanding for the defence to stand [Clark (1972). The defence will fail where D use her sense of reasoning. It must be proved that D did not know the nature and quality of his act (physical nature); Did not know that what he was doing was wrong (legal nature) Windle (1952) who gave his mentally ill wife an overdose of aspirin.

The loss of control or consciousness must be complete Attorney General's Reference (Np. 2 of 1992) (1994). Lorry driver who killed two people. Medical evidence showed that he suffered from repetitive visual stimuli, trance like state but retain some control.


AUTOMATISM AND INTOXICATION

Voluntary consumption of non-prescription drugs or alcohol. Automatism is treated as a form of intoxication and have applied Majewski. For specific intent offence D may be acquited provided there is complete loss of consciousness. If it is a basic offence, success will depend on what cause intoxication. Voluntary consumption, where D knew the impact.

REFORM

The present definition of insanity does not accord with modern perception or mental illness.

EXAMINATION ADVISE

FRANK

Theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act of 1968.

Actus Reus: Dishonest appropriation (assumption of the rights of the owner [Morris (1983)]of property belonging to another person.
Mens rea: Intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

The fact of the questions shows that Frank assumed the right of the owner by using the money to pay his debt.

DEFENCE:

Frank could plead a duress of circumstances as the defence for his crime. The question for the jury is if Frank believes that there is a threat to his life. The fact of the question indicates that it was without foundation which renders it possible mistaken belief. Mistaken belief in relation to duress must be reasonable - Graham. Is the perceived threat (if reasonable) imminent?
Does Frank has an avenue of escape. He might be thought to have an avenue of escape if he belief that Grant is likely to kill him himself. As grant is not there he may be able to seek the protection of the Police and this case may resemble Heath and Hassan but might be different from Hudson.

If he believes Grant has sent his son to kill him, he may belief the threat is more imminent, but the jury had to consider whether the belief is reasonable (James is a young boy and speak in a squeaky voice.

If Frank can satisfy this part of the test, the jury must then judge his action by the standard of a person of reasonable firmness. The jury will take into accounts the fact that he was a former cocaine addict, his paranoia. Self-defence would not apply here because Frank committed theft and did not use force.