1. General Defences (1)
Insanity and
Automatism
MAH 2011-12
G153

2. Hang on...
A general defence?
Yup... That’s right we are looking at defences which may apply to more than murder.
They are known as general defences because (in theory) they apply to all criminal
offences.
Duress &
Insanity Automatism Intoxication
Necessity

3. What do you think?
Student Task:
Before we look at the law...
What do you think?
On the cards are 10 scenarios.
You need to read them and put them
into one of three categories:
Insane
Automatistic
No defence
Be prepared to defend your decision!

4. Now you‟ve got an idea of some of the issues...
How does the law work in practice?
1. What was the verdict for Mr Lowe and what type of
„punishment‟ did he receive?
Read the article and see if you 2. What do we mean by automatism?
can work out the answer to the
following questions 3. What factors were considered important in
establishing whether or not he was acting in an
automatistic state?
4. What is the difference between insane and non-insane
automatism?
5. Why do you think the jury decided it was insane
automatism (aka insanity)?
6. Look at the two cases at the end of the article.
i. Why was Mr Sokell not able to successfully argue
either insane or non-insane automatism?
ii. Why was Mr Buck acquitted on the basis of non-
insane automatism?
7. What do you learn about D and his previous behaviour?

5. Applying your understanding (AO2)
Have you understood?
Insane or non-insane automatism?
Would they be successful?
RRvv Whoolley1970
R v Thomas 1984
Hardie 2009
Lipman 1997
D had suffered from who, dreaming him, he was had
D’s girlfriend was breaking up withfeet away He was a
was taken LSD andsleepwalking all his life. he the
a lorry driver was when 60 that and from
fighting with snakes.
slow moving car in front began, gave him some of her
nightmare that it. His broke into their caravan and
distressed over youthsgirlfriend without warning, tohe
sneeze. The He woke him find that he had killed his
fought tablets to calmup todown,
valium back.sneezing fit consisted of approximately
He awoke to find that he had killed his of seconds.
four
wife.to five sneezes and lasted a couplegirlfriend by
cramming eight inches of sheet down her throat.
However, the tablets had a rather opposite effect,
As had stopped setting fire to a wardrobe.
He a result him taking anti-depressants and other
resulting inhe crshed into the car, causing a seven car
Insanity or seriously injuring some of the drivers.
pile up and automatism?
drugs before the holiday. .
Insanity or automatism?
Insanity or automatism?
Successful or not?
Successful or not?
Successful or not?

6. Insanity
M’Naughten 1843
He was labouring under
such a defect of reason
caused by a disease of
the mind, as to not
know the nature and
quality of the act he
was doing, or if he did
know it, that it was
wrong.

7. Can I use it in the Magistrates’ Court?
But
Yes...
DPP v Harper 1997

8. Special Verdict
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Doesn’t mean go free! What about murder?
Are we talking
about a lot of
Punishment or defendants? Recent disposal
treatment? reforms
Student Thinking
What problems with the law on insanity can you spot so far?
As a lawyer, why might you encourage your client to plead using one of the other mental condition
defences?
As a client, why might you not want to plead NGRI, even if you are suffering from a mental
disorder?
Finally… is the verdict right? Some people argue that it should be „guilty but insane‟ and others that
it should simply be „not guilty‟. What do you think? Why?

9. Element One:
Defect of Reason
R v Clarke
• Is absentmindedness enough?
• What about irresistible impulses?

10. Element Two:
Disease of the Mind
The key problem here is the
word mind.
If it was brain... this whole area
would be a lot easier!
R v Kemp
“the ordinary faculties
of reason, memory and
understanding.”

11. Settling:
What’s the word or phrase?
Inn-sam-it-tea (Insanity)
Pr
Auto-mat-ism (automatism)
Men-tall Con-dish-on deaf-fences (mental condition defences)

12. Starter:
Can you sort the mental condition defences out?
You have the mixed up sections
for the three mental condition
defences (automatism, insanity
and diminished responsibility).
All you need to do is sort them
out into the correct defence.
For each you need to identify:
 Outcome
 Example
 Cause
 Meaning

13. Key Case
R v Sullivan 1984
1. What was the condition D was
suffering from?
2. What are the facts of the case?
3. What does „disease of the mind‟
mean legally?
4. Does the impairment need to be
permanent?
5. What could cause “non-insane
automatism”?
6. What is the only way that the
law could be changed?
AO2: Is our definition of disease of the mind appropriate?

14. A real issue:
What about sleepwalking?
Classic approach: Burgess Murder:
What implication does this have for Lowe 2007
the general population?
Thomas 2009
Is the verdict appropriate for the
defendants?

15. Different crimes,
different rules?
R v Bilton
Facts:
Why was non-insane automatism allowed to go to
the jury?
 Do you agree with the outcome of the case?
Why/why not?
confirmed in...
R v Ecott 2007

16. Other countries?
R v Parks
R v Luedecke

17. “The current response to the problem of
sleepwalking is confused and unclear”
Student Task: Developing your reasoning
Decide whether or not you agree with the statement above... and why!
Challenge: Use at least one case in your reasoning.

18. Other conditions?
R v Hennessey R v Quick

19. Element Three:
Nature and Quality
Either You don‟t know what you are doing;
Or You don‟t understand it.
Thinking & applying the law…
You are paranoid and convinced that Miss Hart has been taken over by and infected
by the devil. You have tried talking to me and it doesn‟t work. You know that if you
leave it, my stomach and internal organs will slowly be eaten away. To save me, you
decide to cut me open knowing that I might die.
Do you have a defence of insanity?

20. Element Four:
It was wrong
Moral? Legal?
Codere 1916 Windle 1952
wrong “according to the “Acting contrary to...
ordinary reasonable
The law of the land.”
standard adopted by the
reasonable man” Johnson 2007
Developing your AO2:
What do you think the test should be? Why?

21. Evaluation of insanity...
What are the issues?
Student Task: Each of you will be given one of the areas below to evaluate and feedback to the
class. Think about what you know about the defence, and think about the cases.
Example:
Contradicts Article 6
of ECHR
Definition developed
It does include in the 19th Century
„treatable‟ diseases Insanity is a
legal definition,
not a medical
The decision is left to The definition is too narrow definition
the jury
Insanity still The Home Secretary
The definition is too carries social decides when to
broad stigma release them if an
issue of murder.
Very few people want to plead it.

22. Plenary:
Assess your learning
Thinking about your target grade, what you want to achieve and
your understanding… which can you answer?
A Consider whether the recent reforms to the law
on insanity have been successful
Evaluate one issue with the current law on
B insanity
Describe the approach of the courts to the problem
C of sleepwalking and insanity
D Explain what the outcome of successfully
pleading insanity is.
E What is the definition of ‘insanity’

23. Homework
• Using the information in the
pack you have been given,
produce an outline of the issues
and reforms relating to mental
condition defences.
• This should be at least one side.
• You do not have to use all the
information... Stick to what you
understand!

24. General Defence Two:
Automatism
Unlike insane automatism, sane automatism results on
a complete defence.
There is no voluntary actus reus!

25. What is automatism legally?
Bratty v Attorney General for
Northern Ireland
Any “act done by muscles without any
control by the mind, such as a
spasm, a reflex action or a
convulsion, or an act done by a
person who is not conscious of
what he doing such as an act done
whilst suffering from concussion
or sleep walking.”
Denning LJ

26. Other examples?
Hill v Baxter T
• Must be some medical • PTSD could be enough as
evidence, a ‘mere assertion’ long as it manifests itself
is not enough physically.
• A swarm of bees or sneeze • But the ratio of Narborough
could constitute an 2006 seems to have limited
involuntary action. this.
Confirmed in Woolley 1997

27. Is Partial Loss of Self-Control Enough?
Attorney-General’s Reference (No.2 of 1992) 1993
1. What was the question posed to the
court?
2. What were the facts of the offence?
3. Was D convicted? How do you know?
4. What is the difference between insane
and non-insane automatism? Give an
example for each.
5. What was the basis of the plea of
automatism?
6. Which part of the Burgess test did the
facts fail?
Confirming the earlier ratio of Broome v Perkins

28. Self induced
automatism?
General rule:
R v Bailey
D was reckless in getting D has a different reaction to
into the automatistic state. the drug than expected.
It’s the result of
voluntarily taken
drink or drugs
R v Lipman R v Bailey R v Hardie

29. Hmmm...
How much do you
remember about
Automatism?

30. Section C Questions
Rashid suffers from diabetes. He has previously suffered
blackouts due to hyperglycaemia and been placed on medication
which he normally takes three times per day. He fails to take
his insulin for a whole day and during the evening, while driving,
he suffers from a blackout. He loses control of his car and
crashes into a pedestrian, Larissa, who is on the pavement.
Larissa dies instantly.
Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C,
and D individually, as they apply to the facts in the above
scenario.
Statement A: Rashid may be charged with the manslaughter of
Larissa because the condition was self-induced.
Statement B: Rashid may plead the defence of automatism
Statement C: Rashid may be found not guilty by reason of
insanity.
Statement D: Rashid may be hospitalised in a secure institution
for the mentally disordered if found 'not guilty by reason of
insanity'.

31. Across
3. The key case - epileptic who came to tea (8)
5. The correct term for 'sentencing' when D is
found NGRI (7,7)
8. The people who decide sanity (4)
9. Condition suffered by Hennessey. (13)
11. All people are presumed to be this (4)
12. Condition D was afflicted with in R v Kemp,
which he argued was physical (16)
13. General term for the direction make under the
1991 Act. (5)
14. Case illustrating that forgetfullness is not
sufficient (6)
15. The key case on insanity, setting out the rules
(9)
16. One of the orders under the 1991 Act (10)
Down
1. The defect of mind must be caused by
this.(7,2,4)
2. The test for 'wrong' R v Windle (5)
4. ............. and quality. One of the conditions (6)
6. Sleepwalking = insanity (7)
7. The ................ faculties of memory, reasoning and
understanding. (8)
9. case of the vengeful diabetic. An external cause
is not sufficient for insanity (12)
10. NGRI + this leads to automatic indefinate
hospital detention. (6)