R v M’Naghten (1843) is the leading case regarding insanity as a defence to a criminal charge. M’Naghten attempted to assassinate the then British prime minister known as Sir Robert Peel. However, he ended up shooting the prime minister’s secretary who passed away some days later. M’Nagthen was initially prosecuted with murder but was later acquitted on the claims of insanity. There was some controversy that arose following the M’Nagthen acquittal. Therefore the House of Lords requested a panel of judges to conduct a review on the law that governed insanity. The two rules that they came up with were as stated below;
- The accused is considered to be of sound mind until proven otherwise;
- To plead insanity, clear evidence should be provided showing that at the time of committing the crime, the accused was struggling with a defect of reason from the mental disease. This means that they are unaware of the nature and quality of the action they were undertaking; or, if they were aware, they failed to realize that the act they were committing was wrong.
Proof of defence is generally on a balance of probabilities. The counsel for the defence is usually responsible for raising the subject of insanity. However, in R V Dickie (1984), the trial judge could talk about the issue and forward it to the jury to conclude whether the accused is insane after all the evidence is put into consideration. If the defence turns out to be a success, then under section 2(1) of the trial of lunatics Act 1883, the jury’s verdict on the matter should be “not guilty undergrounds of insanity”. The availability of the defence is only limited to defendants who have been accused of crimes that need mens rea, which are offences that are not strict liability crimes (DPP V H, 1997). The court, under section 5 of the criminal procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, can order the defendant to acquire guardianship, have an absolute discharge, get admission to a hospital, or remain under supervision or treatment order if the defence on insanity is successful. Practically, when an accused is charged with murder, the defence is now generally pleaded and even then, it is still rare.
Being legally insane and medically insane are two different concepts. In regards to the courts, the subject on insanity is determined as a matter of law according to the regular rules of interpretation, process and evidence. Over the years, the judiciary has deliberated several mental conditions when handling issues on the question of a disease of the mind. The defendant featured in R V Kemp (1956) was ailing from arteriosclerosis. There were disagreements in the medical opinion about the extent to which the disease affected the defendant’s mind. The court made it clear that, regardless of the medical advice that was going to be accepted, the condition was in a position to affect the defendant’s mind, and so was a disease of the mind included in the M’Naghten rules.
Elements of the defence
A disease of the mind
Whether the disease was recognized medically as a mental disease, it was irrelevant. In an example from R V Hennesy (1989), the accused was charged with driving a vehicle without permission. The defendant was suffering from diabetes and needed to take insulin every day. Nevertheless, he had not taken insulin for at least three days before the accident took place. He was also ailing from stress. The defendant claimed that because of the skipped insulin doses, he was not aware of what he was doing and therefore, lacked the requisite mens rea. The judge agreed that this case could be categorized as a disease of the mind under the M’Naghten rules and that the accused was not of sound mind.
Later on, the defendant pleaded guilty and appealed against the judge’s verdict on insanity. The court of appeal upheld the trial judge’s ruling on insanity. Within the M’Naghten rules, Hyperglycemia resulting from lack of insulin was a disease of the mind. The accused was insane when he committed the crime. This demonstrates how the test of insanity is legal as opposed to being medical. Under normal circumstances, a person who is suffering from diabetes is not considered insane. It also explains that in law, someone can be regarded as temporarily insane.
Further, it tends to explain that when it comes to the law, someone can be sane most of the time, but they are prone to suffer episodes of insanity. The M’Nagthen rule requires that the defendant must be declared insane in the course of committing the criminal act. Therefore, From the Alf case, the medical evidence to show whether the blood disorder or the tablets caused alf’s unconsciousness does not matter. The fact is that when he strangled his girlfriend, he was not aware of what he was doing. He lacked mens rea, and therefore, under the M’Naghten rules, this was a disease of the mind. This means that Alf, under the law, is not guilty of manslaughter and thus should be acquitted.
Defect of reason and knowing that the act is wrong
A defect of reason must be caused by the disease of the mind such that the accused is not able to tell the nature or quality of their action or is not aware that what they are doing is wrong. In simpler terms, the defendant must have lost their powers to reason. An individual who is in the state of confusion or is absent-minded such that they are unable to reason appropriately is insufficient (R V Clarke, 1972). In this context, “wrong” translates to legally wrong and not morally wrong. The defendant should be in a state that they fail to realize that their actions are not acceptable by the law. The insanity defence will automatically fail if the defendant is aware that what they have done is legally wrong. A defendant in R V Windle (1952) who was ailing from a mental disease accepted that he gave his wife a dose of aspirin that was fatal. He stated that he would probably be hanged for it. He pleaded guilty on the ground of insanity, but his defence was rejected by the judge citing a lack of evidence. After appealing, the case was dismissed. The Court of Appeal stated that “wrong” meant against the law, and the accused was aware that the act he was committing was against the law. It is clear from the evidence that Alf was in a state of unconsciousness and had lost his power to reason and tell what was right from wrong, making him not guilty to the crime.
Automatism
Usually, in common law, an act that is voluntary is supposed to establish the crime’s actus reus. To establish mens rea, the defendant should also be conscious of their actions. A defendant may be in a position to plead the defence of automatism if they can show that they did a crime as a result of an involuntary act. Lord Denning, in Bratty v Attorney general for Northern Ireland (1963) stated that an act is categorized as involuntary when the muscles perform an action without the mind control or by a person who lacks consciousness on what they are doing. In our case, it is clear that by strangling his girlfriend, Alf was in a state of automatism. The act was involuntary, and he was never aware of what he was doing.
Non-insane and insane automatism
non-insane automatism is a different concept from insane automatism. These two concepts consist of involuntary acts. Nevertheless, an internal factor must influence the involuntary action in insane automatism, while an external factor is responsible for the involuntary act in non-insane automatism. A complete defence and absolution of all criminal liability are only attained by the defendant when they can successfully plead non-insane automatism. On the other hand, a special verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity is delivered when an individual successfully pleads insane automatism. In this case, the defendant is given a hospital order to protect them from the public.
For one to entirely rely on a plea of none-insane automatism, there must be proof that:
- An involuntary action was committed due to an external source or reflex response (RV Kemp (1957))
- The act committed was undoubtedly involuntary (Broome v Perkins)
- The automatism was not as a result of self-induction (R v Bailey1983)
It is the jury’s responsibility to determine if the defence is made out and that the defendant’s action was as a result of an external factor (R V Quick (1973)). When a defendant commits a crime because he sneezed or because he had post-traumatic stress disorder are examples of when a non-insane automatism has been successfully pleaded. In a case where the accused has diabetes and commits a crime, he can only successfully plead non-insane automatism if diabetes or the insulin made him commit the illegal act. In our case, Alf committed the crime of strangling his girlfriend while in a state of unconsciousness. However, it was not established if the act he committed was because of the blood disorder or the tablets the doctor prescribed. Therefore, we cannot tell which internal factor influenced the action. So in this case, Alf cannot successfully have a plea on none-insane automatism.
Self-induced automatism
Drunkenness or drugs
Automatism can be voluntarily induced through drugs and alcohol, and this could lead to someone committing an involuntary act or fail to realize that whatever they are doing is wrong. However, this cannot be a full defence in regards to matters of public policy. The reason behind this is that several crimes have been committed when the culprits are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and these crimes could go unpunished. Nevertheless, a partial defence could be applied in such a scenario if the defendant is charged with a crime that needs a specific intent which the alcohol and drugs negated. In our situation, Alf killed his girlfriend while under the influence of the tablets the doctor prescribed to him. If the drugs were responsible for his actions, then Alf’s intoxication could be used to demonstrate that he lacked mens rea for murder. This is because for Alf to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove that he had a specific intent to kill or cause bodily harm to his girlfriend. So in Alf’s case, the only conviction to be upheld is that of manslaughter. However, his mental state that was induced by the drugs cannot be a defence to manslaughter because it is a crime that does not require specific intent. In DPP V Majewski (1976) the House of Lords made it clear that unless a crime is charged with a particular purpose, then the defence of alcohol and drugs is inapplicable. In the case where the accused commits a mistake due to their involuntary induced intoxication, it helps to negate the automatism defence. The court of appeal has in RV O’Grady 1987, stated that the accused has no right to rely upon a mistake of fact which has been influenced by voluntary intoxication, as far as self-defence is concerned.
Drunkenness or drugs not self-induced
In our case, Alf has been charged with manslaughter. On the night that he killed his girlfriend, he took a double dosage of the tablets that the doctor prescribed to him. His defence states that he was unconscious and therefore, lacked mens rea. He was not charged with murder because he lacked self-control and did not have any intention to end his girlfriend’s life. However, the prosecution could argue that even though Alf was not aware of the effects of taking an overdose, that is if at all his actions were influenced by the drugs, he should not have in the first place consumed such a significant amount. This shows that the drugs were self-induced. Taking an overdose could have reversed the effect that the average dosage could have had and therefore, making him liable for killing his girlfriend on the ground of recklessness.
Alf’
Murder is categorized as a specific intent crime. This means that the accused while committing murder, had the intention of causing harm to his victim. To prove that the accused is guilty of murder, the prosecution must show that the physical action against the victim was carried out when the defendant was in a state of sound mind. When a crime is categorized as specific intent, it does not necessarily need the proof of a particular fault element of intention. It can only do so if, as stated above, in the case of murder, the prosecution presents to the court the proof that the defendant had the desire to kill or inflict bodily harm. However, the concept of specific intent also involves other states of mind, like knowing or believing that something is the case. By being accused of murder, it does not mean that the degree of capability is connected to the commissioning of the crime. However, if Alf overdosing had anything to do with killing his girlfriend, then this would be beyond a reasonable doubt a crime of “specific intent”.
Alf has been charged with manslaughter and not murder. This is because he lacked mens rea and actus reus. Further, Alf was in a state of involuntary intoxication. This meant that he did not know if the drugs he took could lead him to strangle his girlfriend. However, if he were to be charged with murder, this would have meant that he would have actus reus when he strangled his girlfriend. The case also does not state whether Alf’s actions were influenced by the blood disorder (internal factor) or the tablets he took (external factors). To be guilty of murder, Alf needed to have overdosed with the knowledge that he would commit such an extreme act. This could have ruled out the chances of recklessness, thereby demonstrating Alf’s awareness of what he was doing and thus being rendered guilty. The law states that if the accused indulges in criminal acts and there is an extent of fault on the accused decisions to become intoxicated, then there is blameworthiness to have them convicted. This applies even though the charged is in the state of unconsciousness when conducting the crime.
If Alf were to be charged with murder, then this would mean that he had a specific intent. Therefore, Alf would begin to rely on evidence on involuntary intoxication to evade liability for the offence of strangling his girlfriend. The matter would now be handed over to the jury that would conclude whether there is a possibility that Alf, the defendant, failed to act with a state of mind needed by the offence’s definition and if Alf’s intoxicated state may have relevance when it comes to the determination of this issue. If the case were to be presented in the Court of Appeal, the jury would be ordered to critically assess all the evidence, including that which is connected to Alf overdosing. This would be helpful to draw inferences as they make decisions guided by the evidence, and on that basis to ask themselves if they felt sure that at the time of the murder, Alf had the requisite intent.