Insanity and automatism

Overview

Recall questions on the M'Naghten rules, defect of reason, disease of the mind and not knowing the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong, the burden of proof, the special verdict and its disposals, and non-insane automatism.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   What is meant by 'defect of reason' in the context of the insanity defence?

   Model answer

   The defendant's powers of reasoning must be impaired, not merely a failure to use those powers. The defect must be more than absent-mindedness or confusion; the reasoning faculty itself must be affected.

2. 2

   Define 'disease of the mind' as required for the insanity defence.

   Model answer

   A disease of the mind is any internal condition, whether organic or functional, that affects the mind's reasoning, understanding, or perception. It must be an internal factor rather than an external cause.

3. 3

   What does it mean for a defendant not to know 'the nature and quality of their act' under the insanity defence?

   Model answer

   The defendant did not understand the physical character of what they were doing — for example, they did not realise they were strangling a person, believing instead they were squeezing a lemon.

4. 4

   In the insanity defence, what is required to show the defendant 'did not know the act was wrong'?

   Model answer

   The defendant must not have known that what they were doing was legally wrong. Moral wrongness alone is insufficient; they must have lacked awareness that the act was contrary to law.

5. 5

   Explain why the defect of reason must arise from a 'disease of the mind' rather than an external factor for the insanity defence to apply.

   Model answer

   The law distinguishes internal causes (disease of the mind) from external causes. If the defect results from an external factor such as a blow to the head or intoxication, the insanity defence does not apply; other defences may be relevant instead.

6. 6

   If a defendant understood the physical nature of their act but believed it was morally justified, would the insanity defence succeed?

   Model answer

   No. The insanity defence requires the defendant not to know the act was legally wrong. Believing an act is morally right while knowing it is illegal does not satisfy the defence.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.