Criminal Law Past Paper PDF

Insanity Pre-1800—D should be “a brute, a beast or have the mind of a child” R v Hadfield (1800) per Lord Kenyon CJ—if a man is in a deranged state of mind at the time he is not criminally answerable Hadfield- He believed if he doesn’t die the world will perish and if he commits suicide he will spen...

Insanity Pre-1800—D should be “a brute, a beast or have the mind of a child” R v Hadfield (1800) per Lord Kenyon CJ—if a man is in a deranged state of mind at the time he is not criminally answerable Hadfield- He believed if he doesn’t die the world will perish and if he commits suicide he will spend eternity in hell- planned to shoot at the King aiming to miss committing treason and he would be hung for it. D discharged to the care of his family Criminal Lunatics Act 1800: provided for indefinite detention of those acquitted of treason, murder or felony on grounds of insanity Trial of Lunatics Act 1883: verdict “guilty but insane”; detention “until Her Majesty’s pleasure be known”; latter an executive matter, but potentially open to judicial review– see Application of Gallagher 1 IR 31 and Application of Gallagher (No 2) 3 IR 10 NOW: Criminal Law (Insanity) Acts 2006 and 2010 Gallagher charged with murder of ex-girlfriend and her mother and then went on a reckless driving escapade through Donegal and drove into the sea. Tried for murder. Jury found ‘guilty but insane’. Court had the right to decide when he be released from mental hospital, ‘not now suffering from any mental disorder’ and cast doubt on whether he ever had a mental disorder. Grounds for keeping him in the hospital were gone. SC decided the decision to release was an executive decision not a judicial one and ‘until the courts pleasure be known’ was wrong. Court confirmed release is a matter for government to determine. 5 years later Gallagher went to the High Court for release, HC refused his release, the Minister took representations from the family members of the victims. Minister is only to consider, does the defendant still suffer from a mental disorder? R v McNaughten (1843) [1843-60] All ER Rep 229 D believed he was being persecuted by Tory party; shot Edward Drummond, secretary to Robert Peel; acquitted Series of questions addressed to the judges. McNaughten Rules A person is presumed to be sane; onus on D to prove his/her insanity D must show that at the time of acting s/he laboured under a defect of reason from a disease of the mind to the extent that s/he did not know the nature and quality of the act, or s/he did not know that it was wrong McNaughten Rules cont’d. If D was conscious that what s/he was doing was wrong s/he is punishable R v Windle 2 All ER 1 He killed his wife. Evidence that wife was insane, if you live in close contact with someone who is insane, it is possible to contract the insanity. His wife wanted to die so Windle poisoned her, he said to police ‘I suppose they will hang me for this’. Shows he knew what he was doing was wrong. Knew it was legally wrong but didn’t appreciate it was morally wrong. Once a defendant knows an act is prohibited by law they will be prosecuted. Ireland has no binding judgement about this. Folie à deux; D knew what he was doing was illegal; held guilty See R v Johnson EWCA Crim 1978; Loake v DPP EWHC (Admin) 2855 But see R v Chaulk (1991) 2 CR (4th) 1; Stapleton v R (1952) 86 CLR 358  Insane delusions: responsibility must be regarded as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real Disease of the Mind Question of law, not medicine- legal definition of insanity differs from medical definitions Legal question about insanity is about criminal responsibility, would it be unfair or unjust to hold them responsible R v Kemp 1 QB 399 D attacked wife with hammer Arteriosclerosis causing congestion of blood on the brain, evidence that his brain was not impaired per Devlin J: the law was concerned with the mind as ordinarily understood memory, understanding, reasoning; condition of the brain is irrelevant. You do not have to consider if there is damage to the brain, the mind is separate from the physical organ of the brain. Developments in neuroscience are beginning to understand physical changes in the brain and their link to mental disorders. R v Quick 3 All ER 347, QB 910 D inflicted bodily harm unaware of what he was doing Hypoglycaemia due to taking prescribed insulin injection: Held: this was an external factor, not a disease of the mind and the defence did not arise Disease of the mind is internal to the defendant R v Sullivan 1 AC 157 Psychomotor epilepsy: D had seizure during which he attacked P. Evidence that the medical profession would not regard the condition as a mental illness Held: it does not matter whether its aetiology is organic or functional or whether condition is permanent, temporary or intermittent D’s condition is a disease of the mind- Epilepsy is part of D’s internal makeup, so it is a disease of the mind. The law recognises you can go through phases of insanity R v Kemp approved No firm decision in Irish law in what is determined as disease of the mind Disease of the Mind Competing tests (i) Internal-external factor (ii) Condition that is liable to recur see remarks in Bratty v AG for NI AC 386 (iii) Defective mental power or disease affecting the mind which prevents D from controlling his conduct Some support in Irish case law for this approach—marks a departure from the McNaughten Rules (iv) “Holistic” approach R v Stone 2 SCR 290 (Sup Ct Canada) Stone was charged with the murder of his wife, he and his wife were driving, his wife asked him to drive her to her ex’s house and then started badgering Stone and commented on his lack of prowess compared to her ex. He then killed her, then he went home got his passport and ran. 6 weeks later, he was in Mexico and remembered what happened. He said his wife’s comments were a psychological blow and put him into a state of automatism. SC of Canada said if a person raises a plea of automatism, he is also claiming insanity. Test of insanity is a holistic test, all these things are factors, can take account of the question’ is this condition liable to re-occur’, would it bring the law into disrepute to say the defendant suffered from a disease of the mind Irish Developments People v Hayes (1967) If the jury was satisfied that D’s mind was so affected by illness that he was unable to restrain himself, verdict - guilty but insane People v Coughlan (1968) Kenny J cited Stephen, Digest of Criminal Law, art 27 (i) where D did not know nature and quality of the act (ii) where D did not know act was wrong (iii) where D was prevented by defective mental power or disease affecting his mind from controlling his conduct unless absence of control was produced by his own default People v McDonagh (1973) 107 ILTR 169 D responding to auditory delusions of a psychotic state per Gannon J: D is insane if at the time he was unable to control his actions, and such defect was due to mental illness Doyle v Wicklow County Council IR 55 Confirms the trend emerging from Irish trial courts McNaughten Rules are not the sole test of insanity; should be read as being limited to insane delusions “Volitional insanity” recognised- a mental health condition where the defendant cannot exercise self-restraint People (DPP) v Courtney, CCA, difference between “unresisted” and “irresistible” impulse Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 S 5 (1)(a) refers to “mental disorder” defined in s 1 as including “mental illness, mental disability, dementia, or any disease of the mind but does not include intoxication” s 5(1)(b) the mental disorder was such that D ought not to be held responsible by reason of the fact that he or she (i) Did not understand the nature and quality of the act, or (ii) Did not know that what he or she was doing was wrong, or (iii) Was unable to refrain from committing the act There must be evidence of a consultant psychiatrist Criminal Law (Insanity) Acts 2006 and 2010 S 5(2) committal to a designated centre if D suffers from a mental disorder as defined in Mental Health Act 2001 and needs in-patient care S 5 (3) court may order committal to designated centre for 14 day (extendable to 6 months) for medical examination S 8 right to appeal verdict of NGRI S 11 Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board Insanity and automatism Dissociative States: “Psychological blow”- can leave the defendant in the same state as being hit in the head by a hammer, can leave you in a dissociative state R v Hennessy 1 WLR 287 Charged with traffic offences, claimed a state of automatism after his wife told him she was leaving, claimed it was a blow to his psyche and entered a state of automatism Court of Appeal said, that is a case of insanity, he is unable to withstand the ordinary pressures of life, even if he was in a dissociative state that would be an internal thing and a disease of the mind Non-insane automatism involves something other than the state of the mind E.g. a hit on the head Rabey v The Queen (1980) 114 DLR (3d) 193 (Sup Ct of Canada) D had accessed to girl’s belongings and read her journal and saw that she liked another boy and also said Rabey was a creep, following day Rabey hit her over the head with a rock sample several times and she suffered severe injuries. Defence argued he suffered a psychological blow and produced a dissociative state. Held: ordinary stresses of life do not constitute an external factor The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 (High Court of Australia) D charged with murder of estranged partner. He admitted to molesting their two daughters, she claims she woke up with the shotgun in her hand and her ex-dead. Defence claimed the psychological blow led her to enter a state of automatism Test: underlying mental infirmity v transient non-recurrent mental malfunction If there is an underlying mental condition- if there is they are looking at insane- automatism, but transient non-recurrent mental malfunction is non-insane automatism R v Stone 2 SCR 290 (Sup Ct Canada) In Canada, if a defendant raises a plea of automatism it is presumed that it is a plea of insane-automatism. Somnambulism- Sleepwalking R v Cogdon (1951) D had nightmares that her daughter was being attacked, she went into her daughters room to fight these people off and hacked her daughter to death. Court concluded acts committed when your sleeping are cases of automatism. She was acquitted R v Burgess 2 QB 92 Burgess was watching a film and fell asleep and next thing he remembers he hit the girl over the head with a bottle and then a video recorder and then he claims he woke up. Must have been a case of insane automatism to create such a violent reaction while asleep R v Parks (1992) 95 DLR (4th) 27 Parks was under a lot of pressure, drove across Toronto 26km, went into a house and attacked an older couple killing one and injuring the other, they were his parent’s in-law. There was history of sleep abnormalities in his family. Suggested by experts he did he have a sleep disorder. Medical evidence given; jury believed this story. Held: not a case of insanity, full acquittal was given Evidence of impairment short of insanity People (DPP) v O’Mahony ILRM 244 Supreme Court refused to recognise a defence of diminished responsibility Court emphasised that verdict of insanity is an acquittal and is “more merciful” Now: Criminal Law (Insanity)Act 2006, s 6 R v Bell 3 All ER 842 D charged with reckless driving Argued that he lacked mens rea as he was “possessed by God” and felt compelled to destroy evil If you introduce evidence of mental issues you have to plead insanity R v Oye EWCA Crim 1725 – reasonable force in circumstances not to be assessed on the basis of D’s delusional beliefs Court rejected this argument. Self-defence cannot be pleaded based on delusional beliefs. If you want to introduce mental health issues it has to be a plea for insanity