Defence of Insanity in Criminal Law

Defence of Insanity in Criminal Law

The understanding of insanity as a defence in the criminal law cases has raised a lot of questions on the responsibility of the insane. Therefore, the critical issue is responsibility and the fact of insanity. The defense of insanity refers to justification in criminal case, disputing that the defendant is not liable because of a mental illness when committing the offence. According to English law, offenders who were insane were taken care or from as early as period of Theodoric Archbishop of Canterbury (668-690 AD) [1]when he said, ‘it is lawful to say mass to an insane person who had killed himself during his madness, but for case of suicide it’s not.’ The case that has been used for reference today is that of James Hadfield. The defendant was accused of attempt assassination of George III; however, the jury came to a ruling of not guilty because of insanity (Criminal Lunatics Act 1800).

A similar case that ensued thereafter was the M’Naghten case, an attempt assassination of the United Kingdom Prime minister Robert Peel. According to M’naghten[2],

 ‘Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason as to be aware of his crime, until the contrary is proved to their satisfaction.’ This means that to establish a defence on insanity, the prove lies on whether the accused while committing the crime was in a state of mental suffering such as not to be aware of his actions, or if he did, his actions didn’t seem wrong to him. This lead to the M’Naghten rules that are mainly referred to while obtaining judgement on insanity in English law.

Another development was the ‘Trial of Lunatics Act (1883)’, the jury was allowed to give a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity.’ However, the accused was to stay in custody for being a ‘criminal lunatic.’ It was the defendant’s duty to prove insanity beyond any reasonable doubt. A similar ruling is that of Chief Justice Hornblower in State vs Spenser [3][1846] 1 ABV 196 ‘the plea of insanity when one committed a crime was required to be clear and without any doubt for the defendant to be acquitted.’

There were complains about M’Naghten rules which led to the creation of a statute by the American Law Institute in 1962 which allowed for the introduction of medical evidence with the aim of loosening the M’Naughten standards. It was merely the introduction of the ‘irresistiple component’ to the M’Naughten rules. The case of Hickley vs State[4], where the court acquitted John Hickley of assault, and 13 counts of murder because of being insane led to a public outcry on the need to review laws on insanity. After that was the 1984 Insanity Defense Act. This act abolished the earlier American Institute of Law act and returned to a similar version of the M’Naughten rules where a defendant could make a plea on insanity if he could prove that his mental suffering was worse when committing the crime. We therefore arrive at the discussion on circumstances which the defence of insanity is relevant.

Insanity during trial

Madness during a hearing can be of relevance when the criminal offender is in custody. Officers in the Homeland security can then give directions for the defendant to be taken to a mental hospital. Reports from at least two medics are required to satisfy that the defendant is indeed guilty and therefore cannot appear in court to answer the charges.

Insanity at the time of the crime

M’Naughten rules are used to decide insanity cases at the time the crime was committed. That is,

‘”Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and … that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” M’Naghten [5].

According to this rule the three main issues that must be determined are, deficiency in reason, the lack is due to a mental disease and that this deficiency caused the defendant not to act rationally.

The case of R v Clarke[6]  the judges ruled that forgetfulness or being absently minded was not sufficient enough to be considered as a lack of reason. Moreover, for lack of logic to be found the cause must be mental illness and other causes not from the mind being disregarded. Mind diseases have been held to include sleepwalking as of the case of, R v Burgess [7]. Epilepsy is also included as a mental illness as was held in Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland [8].

Finally, under this plea of insanity at the time of the crime, the defendant must convince the jury that due to the defect of the reason he was unable to distinguish right from wrong. The defendant cannot be allowed to rely on the defence of insanity if he was aware that is actions were unlawful R v Codere [9].

Inability to plead

Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (1964) [10]which was an amendment of Section 2 of the 1883 Trial of Lunatics Act [11]required a creation of unique jury to determine whether the defendant inability to plead. The findings of the unfit to plead were to be based on some probabilities. These are the ability to comprehend his charges. Second being the ability to make decisions on guilty or not, disagree with the jury’s opinion, testifying in his defence, giving instructions to his solicitor and following court proceedings. as was in the case of R v Pritchard[12],  where the jury concluded that the defendant was deaf and dumb and hence could not plead.

If the jury finds the defendant unfit to plead, a second jury is created to establish if the defendant is guilty of the crime subsection 2 Criminal Procedure Act [1964].

Criminal Law Revised Committee (Crim.L.R.291)

Introduction of diminished responsibility in the Homicide Act 1957[13], and despite being used for a more extended period, it’s subjected to a lot of criticism. After which was the creation of a new diminished responsibility by Coroners and Justice Act (2009). It is provided in s.52 Coroners and Justice Act (2009) [14]as follows, first, if one kills, is party to a killing he should not be convicted if the killer had a mental illness or mental dysfunction. The dysfunction should have been due to a medical disorder that is recognised, should have prevented the killer from understanding his doings, forming judgements that are rational and applying self-control and should be an explanation to actions or be a party to the killings. An explanation is the remarks of Lord Hutton, ‘I think that in referring to substantial impairment of mental responsibility the subsection does not require that abnormality of mind to be the sole cause of the defendant’s acts in the killing. In my opinion, even if the defendant would not have killed if he had not taken a drink, the causative effect of the drink does not necessarily prevent an abnormality of mind suffered by the defendant from substantially impairing his mental responsibility for his fatal acts.” it was an opinion calling for the reforms of s.2 1957 act.

Explanations to the case study

To be able to make a general conclusion if the defence of insanity is applicable in Alf’s case, first, we need to lay down all the facts. These are Alf suffered from rare blood disorder which could cause severe blackouts. The doctor had given a prescription of powerful tablets to counter the effects of the disorder. However, half had taken an overdose, and the medic’s evidence is inconclusive of whether the unconsciousness is due to the disorder or the overdose. Therefore, the relevance of the defence of insanity lies in insanity at the time of the crime. Where according to the case M’Naghten [15][1, ‘every man is to be presumed to be sane, and … that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a lack of reason, from the disease of the mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not think he was doing what was wrong.”

From the facts of the case, we can point out that the defendant Alf was unconscious hence had a defect of reason. The unconscious mind caused by a blood disorder. Although not mental disease this can be included in the diseases of the mind as was ruled by Delvin J [16]‘diseases of the mind and that of the body is not to be distinguished for the defence of insanity.’ Due to unconsciousness, Alf was unaware of his actions. However, Alf can be denied to use the defence of insanity because of taking an overdose of his prescription an action he was aware of. Failure by medical evidence to determine the cause of the unconsciousness is to his advantage.

We can, therefore, conclude that Alf can be able to successfully plea insanity as a reason for committing the offence. It could have been different if the medical evidence had shown that the unconsciousness was due to taking an overdose. Alf will be subjected to confinement of not guilty because of insanity.’

Defence of Automatism

According to the English law, offences are only punishable provided they were done voluntarily. However, for an extended period, the courts have just been able to recognise a few elements of involuntary acts. This can be shown by the high court of Ontario ruling that held that, ‘in a criminal charge there are only two defences that are known, drunkenness and insanity.’ The development of criminal law has been able to indicate that a man can be ready to commit an offence without insane or drunk. This brings us to the automatism a cause involuntary commitment of crime. Automatism can be said to be an unconscious unintentional behaviour. It can be applied as a defence to criminal charges if an accused was in such a state of unconscious control of his or her body when he committed the offence. However, the lack of conscious control should not have been as a result of his or her previous actions. It can be seen as it was applied in R v Charlton [17]. Evidence identified that the Charlton attacked his child with a mallet was possibly suffering from a cerebral tumour and therefore was not in control of his actions. Thus, the only explanation was automatism

The defence of automatism differs from that of insanity in that for automatism the accused, if it is established that he suffered from automatism is acquitted whereas for the defence of insanity the remedy is confinement. In automatism the task of prove lies on the accused, however it is for the crown to give a final decision upon reviewing all the elements of the crime as in case of R v Carter [18].  In support of this was the remarks of Viscount Kilmuir, for automatism to be used as a defence genuinely, evidence must be available for the jury to decide that automatism existed and hence the defence must identify the evidence from which the members of the jury can refer to.  This slightly differs from the insanity as a defence where the ability to prove lies with the accused.

We can now conclude that for non-insane automatism to be applicable as a defence the following conditions must be fulfilled. A total loss of control should have occurred Broome v Perkins [19]. The total loss should not be as a result of self-induction R v Bailey [20].  The other requirement is that the automatism should be caused by an external occurrence for example a hit on the head causing unconsciousness, due to the administration of a drug and a case of traumatic stress. Finally, there must be complete unawareness.

Characteristics of automatism

Automatism may occur in different natures. One of them is that of unconscious or non-voluntary action. If the cause of automatism is due to a disease of the mind the accused is said to be ‘not guilty by reason of insanity.’ This form of automatism applies the M’Naghten rules, and the remedy for this is confinement in a mental hospital.

The other nature of automatism often referred to as non-insane automatism is that which the involuntary behaviour is. As a result, unconscious state of mind prompted by a cause other than the mind disease. For insanity to be considered in court, the defence must avail evidence that the indeed the accused was in such as state and the Crown must put into scrutiny the evidence available and suggest otherwise.

Limitations of this defence

For a case of insane automatism, the primary challenge that has been facing its application is the understanding of the requirement ‘cause by a disease of the mind.’ According to the Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland[21], ‘disease of the mind refers to any mental illness that is characterised by violence and likely to occur again.’ This illustrates that what the court is really concern about is the violent action and the chance of the behaviour happening again. Therefore, if a disease is considered to be of the mind, it will be placed as a defence of insanity and not automatism.

The other limitation is on self-induced automatism. An example is where an accused person had had diabetes; it is likely that his or her evidence will be dismissed with the argument that they are aware of their condition and hence should observe their diet and follow their medication.

The defence of automatism violates the Criminal Law principle of accountability, and therefore the acceptability of this as a defence in a criminal case illustrates unfairness in putting the responsibility to persons who are not to be entirely blamed for their actions.

Explanation of the case study

The laid out facts on the charges of manslaughter facing Alf are, Alf suffers from a rare blood disorder that could cause blackouts. His doctor has also prescribed powerful tablets to counter the effects of the disorder. However, Alf takes an overdose of his medication, but the evidence does no show the cause of unconsciousness is due to the drugs or the disorder.

In the application of the defence of automatism, Alf’s case can be said to be that of insane automatism. There should be a loss of control as a result of disease of the mind and thus being unaware of his actions. Assuming that the cause of the unconscious mind is the blood disorder, our main problem is to determine if it is a disease of the mind. About Delvin J. ruling where no medical expertise can classify what disease of the mind is, and hence provided the disease is attributed to the loss of reason of the mind then it is a disease of the mind. Therefore we can say that Alf’s blood disorder causes him to suffer from unconscious mind. Consequently, he was unaware of his actions. Alf’s defence of insane automatism will therefore be successful and he will not be guilty by an excuse of insanity. The courts will have to decide on confinement.

The other assumption that we would make is if the unconsciousness was as a result of the external factor the powerful tablets. Having in mind the other nature of automatism, non-insane automatism, where the accused should have complete loss of control of the mind. The loss of control should not be as a result of self-induction, and this loss should be due to an external cause. The external case here is the powerful tablets. However, Alf cannot be successful in this case since he took an overdose of the medication and we can say that he was indeed aware that doing so was dangerous. Therefore, the defence cannot be applicable to the argument that the unconsciousness was a result of the powerful tablets which was self-induced by taking an overdose.

Case variation from murder to manslaughter

If a person commits a homicide without any reason to justify his actions can be said to have committed murder. Manslaughter, on the other hand, can be said to be a homicide committed in ‘the heat of passion’ due to a degree of adequate provocation and the act being done before the accused had sufficient time to cool done State v Wright  [22]. The defence of automatism varies in a case of murder and manslaughter as in case of R v Stone [23]. Stone was facing murder charges for killing his wife Donna. However, he pleaded in defence of automatism also claiming to have been provoked and lack of intention to kill. According to the verdict Stone was found to have suffered from insane automatism and the charges of murder were reduced to manslaughter.

In application to the case of Alf, a charge of murder would be different to that of manslaughter. While for manslaughter the accused was ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ and hence subjected to confinement at the discretion of the court, for a case of murder charges, the charges will be reduced to manslaughter.

Bibliography

Statutes

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Criminal Procedure Act 1964

Homicide Act 1957

Trial of the Lunatics Act 1883

Cases

Broome v Perkins [1987] Crim LR 271

M’naghten [1883] UKHL J16

State v W right [1960] SW 2d716

State vs Spenser[1846] 1 ABV 196

Hickley v State [1981] 525 F Supp DDC   1342

R v Bailey [1983]Crim LR 353

R v Clarke [1927] 40 CLR 227

Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386

R v Carter [1959] VR 105 11

R v Charlton [1957] 11 ALL ER 858

R v Burgess [1991] 2 WLR 1206

R v Codere [1916] 12 Cr App 21

R v Pritchard [1836] 7 C& P 303

R v Stone [1999] 2 SCR 290

Articles.

Allnutt and others “The insanity defence: from wild beasts to M’Naghten.” Australasian Psychiatry 15.4 [2007] 292-298.

Beaumont and Guy “Automatism and hypoglycaemia.” Journal of forensic and legal medicine 14.2 [2007] 103-107.

Crotty and D Homer “The history of insanity as a defence to crime in English criminal law.” California Law Review [1924] 105-123

Griffith and Richard and Cassam Tengnah. “Driving with diabetes: the automatism defence.” British journal of community nursing 16.2 [2011]

Jennings and John. “The Growth and Development of Automatism as a Defence in Criminal Law.” Osgoode Hall LJ 2 [1960] 370.

Mackay and others “Yet more facts about the insanity defence.” [2006]

Mackay and R. D. and Markus Reuber “Epilepsy and the Defence of Insanity-Time for Change?.” CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW-LONDON- [2007] 782https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Markus_Reuber/publication/263235934_Epilepsy_and_the_defence_of_insanitytime_for_a_change/links/02e7e53a3556fd989f000000/Epilepsy-and-the-defence-of-insanity-time-for-a-change.pdf accessed 10 december 2017

Memon and Rafiq. “Legal theory and case law defining the insanity defence in English and Welsh law.” The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 17.2 [2006] 230-252.

Samuels and others “When killing isn’t murder: psychiatric and psychological defences to murder when the insanity defence is not applicable.” Australasian Psychiatry 15.6 [2007] 474-479.

Sobeloff and E Simon. “Insanity and the Criminal Law: from McNaghten to Durham, and beyond.” American Bar Association Journal [1955] 793-879.

Taylor and Pamela J and John Gunn. “Homicides by people with mental illness: myth and reality.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 174.1 [1999]  9-14.

White and William Alanson, ‘Insanity and the criminal law’ Da Capo Press, [1981].

W Wilson and others ‘Violence, sleepwalking and the criminal law: (2) the legal aspects’ [2005] Crim LR 614.

Wells and Helene and Paul Wilson. “R v Leonboyer: The role of expert witnesses in psychological blow automatism cases.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 11.1 [2004] 167-173.

Books

M J Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law (13th edn, OUP 2015)

Lawrie Reznek, Evil or ill? Justifying the insanity defence ( 1997)

John Cook, Critique of Criminal Justice in America (2001)

J Stephen, History of Criminal law of England  (1880) ISBN 13

[1]  David W Jones ‘J16Understanding Criminal Behaviour: Psychosocial Approaches to Criminality’

[2] [188] UKHL J16

[3] [1846] 1 ABV 196

[4] [1981] 525 F Supp DDC 1342

[5] [1843] UKHL J16

[6] [1927] 1 ALL ER 219

[7] [1991] 2 WLR 1206

[8] [1963] AC 386

[9] [1916] 12 Cr App R 217

[10]  Criminal Procedure Act [1964]

[11] Trial of the Lunatics Act [1883]

[12] [1836] 7 C&P 303

[13]  Homicide Act [1957]

[14] Coroners and Justice Act [2009]

[15] [1846] UKL J16

[16] Delvin J ruling on ‘diseases of the mind’ https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/insanity-cases.php. accessed on 8 December 2017

[17] [1957] 11 ALL ER 858

[18] [1959] VR 105 111

[19] [1987] Crim LR 271

[20] [1983] Crim LR 353

[21] [1963] UKL 3

[22] [1960] SW 2d 716

[23] [1999] 2 SCR 290