• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law and discuss whether the law is in a satisfactory condition.

Extracts from this document...


Explain the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law and discuss whether the law is in a satisfactory condition. The law of insanity in England is contained in the M'Naghten Rules, the result of the deliberations of the judges of the House of Lords in 1843. Media and public outcry at the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten led to the creation of the Rules as an attempt to clarify the defence. The Rules have been treated as authoritative of the law ever since. The 'general part' of the Rules is as follows: The jurors ought to he told in all cases that every man is presumed to he sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; To establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was suffering such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, ...read more.


Therefore, the true defence was sane automatism entitling him to an acquittal. The law draws a distinction between two causes of automatism: Automatism caused by a "disease of the mind" (insane automatism). Here the M'Naghten Rules apply, and the verdict should be one of not guilty by reason of insanity. Automatism not caused by a "disease of the mind' (sane automatism). Here the verdict is an acquittal - unless D's condition was self-inflicted, e.g. by drink or drugs, as in Lipman (1970). The question of whether D's condition is sane or insane automatism is one of law for the judge (Bratty 1963). Judges base their decision on medical evidence. However, because disease of the mind is a legal concept, judges will also take account of policy. There have been two distinct approaches: The continuing danger theory, which says that any condition likely to present a recurring danger to the public should be treated as insanity and the external cause theory, which says that conditions stemming from the psychological or emotional makeup of the accused, rather than from some external factor, should lead to a finding of insanity. ...read more.


The over-reliance on the external factor test produces bizarre abnormalities (Quick and Hennessy). It means that diabetics (sometimes), epileptics and sleepwalkers are legally, but not medically, insane. This is a huge contradiction and does not follow what is now understood in our advanced medical world. The rules currently do not distinguish between defendants who represent a public danger and those who do not. Illnesses such as diabetes and epilepsy can be controlled by medication such that sufferers are less likely to have temporary aberrations of mental capacity, but the law does not recognise this. The emphasis on legality in deciding whether D knew his acts were 'wrong' is inappropriate and too narrow as there is no way to define 'wrong' as it changes in all situations. In summary the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are not in a satisfactory condition as they have not changed since 1843, yet medical science and opinions have developed and allowed greater understanding of mental defects. This wide gulf of knowledge between the law and medical science has led to unsatisfactory rulings such as in Quick and Hennessy. Kate Allen ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    with her aunt, who was suddenly taken ill with gangrene in her leg and became unable either to feed herself or to call for help. D did not give her any food, nor did she call for medical help, even though she remained in the house and continued to eat her aunt's food.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critical evaluation of murder for A2 law unit 4

    3 star(s)

    who got up, armed himself with a shot gun, and without warning fired three shots in to the dark. One of the shots killed a burgular. Convicted of murder. He appeal on the grounds of self defence, but it was rejected as the force was not reasonable.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    How effective was the defence of intoxication?

    3 star(s)

    which D was a diabetic who wounded (s20) his ex-girlfriends' new boyfriend after taking insulin but no food, causing loss of consciousness so D did not have the mens rea. It was held that intoxication arising from excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs were distinct from intoxication from unexpected side-effects of therapeutic substances.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in ...

    3 star(s)

    In this case he was successfully labelled as insane which meant he was able to give a plea of insanity and this led to a not guilty verdict. From this case the M?Naghton test was established meaning that to qualify as insane any one defendant must suit the following: 1.

  1. The law relating to the defence of insanity is out dated and unsatisfactory. Reform ...

    The old fashioned terminology in the M'Naughton rules may sound offensive, e.g. to a diabetic who has been labelled 'insane'. If a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity, the judgement comes under another old fashioned law called the Trial of Lunatics set out in 1883.

  2. Critically consider whether the law governing involuntary manslaughter is in a satisfactory state.

    However it has subsequently been held that Waller LJ was simply confirming that D's act must cause V's death. Given that constructive manslaughter requires an unlawful and a dangerous act, it follows that if D omits to act, he cannot be guilty of this form of manslaughter.

  1. List and explain the six most important cases for the law on insanity, explaining ...

    illness, it might have been decided that only mental illness could be included in the M?Naghten rules. In Kemp, the defendant suffered from a physical illness known as arteriosclerosis, which caused the arteries to harden, causing congestion of blood on the brain.

  2. Explain what is meant by the term 'causation' in criminal law and assess how ...

    The victim would still have died if the incompetent medical treatment had not occurred. Medical treatment can still be an intervening act if it was obvious that there was a total lack of competence on the doctor?s or surgeon?s behalf.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work