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 8 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. Whilst you are waiting...
What are the words?
Inn-Sam-It-Tea (insanity)
PR
Auto-mat-prism (automatism)
Men-tall con-dish-on deaf-fences (mental condition defences)

12. Check you got the essentials...
Complete the passage below, using what you have learnt so far about insanity.
Insanity is a general defence which can be usedused in either court. If successfully argued it results
which can be in either court. If successfully argued it results in
the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. This by reason of insanity. Thisone of three
in the of not guilty allows the judge to make allows the
disposals, depending three circumstances of the case. circumstances of the case. Either a
judge to make one of on thedisposals, depending on theEither a hospital order, a supervision order
or an absolute discharge. The only exception is the crime of murder which exception have acrime
order, a order or an absolute discharge. The only must still is the
mandatory hospital order attached. have a mandatory hospital order attached.
of which must still
The defence originates from the case of M’Naughten, where the House of Lords stated that to be
, where the House of Lords stated that to
insane D D had to be suffering from a defect of reason, caused by a disease of mind, such that
be insanehad to be suffering from a defect of reason, caused by a disease of thethe mind, such
either
that he does not know the nature and quality of whatandis doing, or that it is wrong.he is doing,
he does not know the he of what This is an
old test, is
or that itwhich puts theThis is an old test, which puts the burden of proof on
. burden of proof on D. .
The courts have interpreted ‘defect of reason’ as a complete absence of reason. This means that
those who give in to an ‘irresistible impulse’ would not be covered by the defence. The courts
have, however, taken a much wider approach to the meaning of disease of the mind, holding that
it includes anything that affects the ‘‘ordinary faculties of reason, memory and understanding’, and
’, and so including a range of
so including a range of physical, as arteriosclerosis and
physical, treatable diseases suchtreatable diseases such .as arteriosclerosis and epilepsy.
Can you name the key cases for
each of the areas of insanity we
have already looked at?

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
Waddya think?
What problems can you see regarding
these two cases?
Which of these defences would you
prefer? Why?

19. Element Three:
Nature and Quality
Either You don‟t know what you are doing;
Or You don‟t understand it.
Why is this a problem for 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
Here‟s a bigger question...
What should the test be? Why?

21. Does the current law work?
Encompasses
Johnson 2007, makes it Insanity is
You will be given one of clear that the not a term
physical, treatable
these points to prepare. diseases.
M’Naughten test has used by
been consistently applied psychiatrists
64% of males in
WARNING by the courts.
prison have a
By trial,
You will present your personality
Really only provides a defence to many D are
argument to the rest of ‘sane’ in disorder
the fully delusional or blackout D
the class. appearance
Should juries really be making Numbers pleading NGRI:
Could any of these medical judgments? 1988 – 4 pleadings
statements help you...? 1992 – 6 pleadings
Reforms on disposals have opened up 2001 – 15 pleadings
the plea
Evidence is that not all
Provides Inconsistent with psychiatrists can apply the
protection the civil law and test – ‘wrong’ as moral.
for the mental disorder
public, and a
way to treat The other mental condition defences of diminished
D responsibility and automatism provide further protection

22. Plenary:
How much have you learnt?
Bearing in mind your target grade, and what you want to
achieve at the end... answer one of the following questions?
A Consider whether the recent changes to insanity have
been an effective reform.
B Justify the current approach of the courts to insanity
C Describe the approach of the court to the problem of
the sleepwalking defendant.
D Explain what is meant by a disease of the mind
E Identify the outcome of successfully pleading insanity?

23. Homework
Complete task one on the
front of the handout.
Using your own words and
understanding, produce at least
one side detailing the problems
with the current law and
considering the proposals for
reform.
Due: 9th November 2011
Stretch and consolidation:
Aim to refer to at least three
cases in your argument!

24. Starter:
What’s what?
Sort out the cards!
You have the descriptions of the
three mental condition defences
and examples in your pile... can you
sort them out?
 Defence
 Means
 Result
 Cause
 Example

25. Starter:
What’s the case… and which is the odd one out?
This is the concept that
we will be focusing on
today… what is meant by
automatism and what is it‟s
scope?

26. But first…
How confident are you with insanity?
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)
15 minutes… 15 questions… one prize!

27. General Defence Two:
Automatism
Unlike insane automatism, sane automatism results on
a complete acquittal.
AO2 Thinking:
Why is it a defence?

28. What type of thing could be
automatistic?
What cases have we covered
which are automatistic?
What conditions might be
automatistic?

29. Enough Faffing…
What is an automatistic action?
Bratty v Attorney General for  What do you notice about
Northern Ireland Denning’s definition?
“act done by muscles without any
control by the mind, such as a  What limitations does
Denning impose on the
spasm, a reflex action or a
definition?
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.”
Stretch and Challenge:
Denning LJ How does this link to the
current meaning and
interpretation of insanity?

30. What else might it cover?
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
could constitute an Narborough 2006 seems
involuntary action. to have limited this.
Confirmed in Woolley 1997

31. What doesn’t it cover?
R v Rabey
“ the ordinary
stresses and
disappointments of
life aren’t enough.”

32. Is a 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? Case Automatism? Insanity?
6. Which part of the Burgess test did
Hennessey
the facts fail?
7. The report mentions four cases Quick
which are relevant. Complete the grid Sullivan
to show your understanding!
Burgess

33. R v Bailey Self induced
automatism?
Should D have been able
to rely on automatism as a First question: is it a basic or specific intent crime?
defence?
Basic
What evidence is there
to refute this?
Specific
Basically... it‟s a little more complicated
Lipman D doesn’t know that
his actions are
likely to lead to a
D was reckless in self induced state
getting into the where D completes
automatistic state the offence
through voluntary
intoxication Hardie

34. Finally:
How much do you know
about automatism?
Student Task:
On your back page, you have the first
half of each of these sentences... Can
you match them to the end and
complete the summary?

35. Putting the assessment objectives together…
“The law relating to the defence of insanity is outdated and unsatisfactory. Reform is long overdue in the
interests of both justice and common sense.”
Evaluate the accuracy of this statement. [50]
The following response comes
from a student in 2008. You are
going to mark it!
1. Read it! What are your initial first
impressions?
Wide-ranging/Good/Adequate/Limited/Very limited
2. Look at the indicative mark scheme,
and the examiners‟ comments and
annotate the answer for:
Strengths
 Weakness

36. What did you mark it as?
AO1 AO2
LEVEL 5 Wide-ranging, accurate, detailed Ability to identify correctly the relevant and
knowledge with a clear and confident 21- important points of criticism, showing good 17-20
It actually received:
understanding of the relevant concepts 25 understanding of current debate and proposals
and principles. Where appropriate, for reform, or to identify all of the relevant
candidates will be able to elaborate with points of law in issue. A high level of ability to AO1 = 18
wide citation of relevant statutes and case
law
develop arguments, and reach a cogent, logical
and well-informed conclusion. AO2 = 16
LEVEL 4 Good, well-developed knowledge 16-
Ability to identify and analyse issues central to
the question, showing some understanding of 13-16
AO3 = 4
with a clear understanding of the relevant 20 current debate and proposals for reform, or to
Total: 38 (B)
concepts and principles. Where identify most of the relevant points of law in
appropriate, candidates will be able to issue. Ability to develop clear arguments and
elaborate by good citation to relevant reach a sensible and informed conclusion.
statutes and case-law.
LEVEL 3 Adequate knowledge showing Ability to analyse most of the more obvious
reasonable understanding of the relevant 11- points central to the question or to identify the 9-12
concepts and principles. Where 15 main points of law in issue. Ability to develop
appropriate, candidates will be able to arguments and reach a conclusion.
elaborate with some citation of relevant
statutes and case-law.
LEVEL 2Limited knowledge showing Ability to explain some of the more obvious
general understanding of the relevant 6-10 points central to the question or to identify 5-8
concepts and principles. There will be some of the points of law in issue. A limited
some elaboration of the principles, and ability to produce arguments based on their
where appropriate with limited reference material but without a clear focus or
to relevant statutes and case-law. conclusion.
LEVEL 1 Very limited knowledge of the Ability to explain at least one of the simpler
basic concepts and principles. There will 1-5 points central to the question or to identify at 1-4
be limited points of detail, but accurate least one of the points of law in issue. The
citation of relevant statutes and case-law approach may be uncritical and/or unselective.
will not be expected.

37. Any areas you have put nothing for... Plenary
Were you missing? How confident are you?
Did you ask?
Have you researched?
I know what I can I can evaluate
this is. describe this or discuss this
The implications of pleading insanity
The definition of insanity from
M‟Naughten
The interpretation of defect of reason
The interpretation of disease of the
mind
What is meant by nature and quality
and wrong
The definition of non-insane
automatism
The approach of the court to self
induced automatism
The problems with the current law on
insanity and automatism.

38. Starter:
What’s what?
Sort out the cards!
You have the descriptions of the
three mental condition defences
and examples in your pile... can you
sort them out?
 Defence
 Means
 Result
 Cause
 Example

39. 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’

40. So what can you tell me about mental condition defences?
Complete the brainstorm below to show your understanding of the AO1 for this
topic
Means? Means?
Result?
Result?
Mental
automatism Insanity
condition
defences

41. Developing your AO2
Snowballing the discussion
Building up the AO1 and AO2*
1. Each of you has a statement at the
top of the page. You need to say what
it is… and throw!
2. Then for the one you have been given,
describe this element (what it covers,
examples of cases etc.)… and throw it
again!
3. Now evaluate or discuss the point you
have in front of you.
 Why is that the correct
approach in the law?
You now have an  What problems may arise?
example of well  Have the courts been
explained and linked consistent?
AO1&2, which you can  Is this approach fair?
use for
*this is building on your feedback last lesson!

42. Applying the law:
Section C Questions
Rashid suffers from diabetes. He has previously suffered
blackouts due to hyperglycaemia and been placed on medication Some Pointers:
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
20 marks
into a pedestrian, Larissa, who is on the pavement. Larissa dies All AO2
instantly. Respond in
bulletpoints
Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C,
and D individually, as they apply to the facts in the above Must assess the
scenario. truth of each
statement.
Statement A: Rashid may be charged with the manslaughter of
Larissa because the condition was self-induced.
Treat each
statement separately
Statement B: Rashid may plead the defence of automatism  No case facts
 Knowing your
Statement C: Rashid may be found not guilty by reason of
insanity. definitions is the key
to these!
Statement D: Rashid may be hospitalised in a secure institution
for the mentally disordered if found 'not guilty by reason of
insanity'.

43. Answering the question!
Statement A: Rashid may be charged with the
manslaughter of Larissa because the condition was
self-induced.

44. Answering the question!
.
Statement B: Rashid may
plead the defence of
automatism
Student task:
In your groups, you are each going to be given one of
these problems, and then complete the answer and
present it back to the class.
Statement C: Rashid may be Remember that you have the model of Statement A to
found not guilty by reason of guide you!
insanity
Statement D: Rashid may be
hospitalised in a secure
institution for the mentally
disordered if found 'not
guilty by reason of insanity'.

45. Homework
Complete task two
(re-writing the
essay) aiming to
improve both the
level and the grade
using your
understanding and
knowledge of the
mental condition
defences.
Due: Friday 24th
February 2012

46. You have now had a chance to go over Plenary
this. Look over your responses How confident are you?
yesterday, and change/add any which
you can now do!
I know what I can I can evaluate
this is. describe this or discuss this
The implications of pleading insanity
The definition of insanity from
M‟Naughten
The interpretation of defect of reason
The interpretation of disease of the
mind
What is meant by nature and quality
and wrong
The definition of non-insane
automatism
The approach of the court to self
induced automatism
The problems with the current law on
insanity and automatism.