Capacity Defences
Capacity Defences
- Can be used where the defendant can show their mental functions (their mental
capacity) was “diminished” or impaired
Insanity
Definition -
M’Naghten (1843)
- The defendant suffered from extreme paranoia and thought he was being persecuted
by the ‘Tories’. Due to this, he tried to kill a member of Parliament but instead ended
up killing his secretary.
- The defendant was found not guilty of murder, by reason of insanity.
1. Defect of reason
2. As a result of a disease of the mind
3. Which caused the defendant to not know the nature or quality of their act, or not
know what they were doing was wrong
The Defendant Must Be Suffering From a Defect of Reason
- The defendant must be deprived of their powers of reasoning. This does not include
absentmindedness or being confused.
R v Clarke (1972)
This Defect of Reason is Due to a ‘Disease of the Mind’
- ‘Disease of the mind’ is a legal term and not a medical one
- This can include mental or physical diseases, but they must affect the operation of
the mind. This must be supported by medical evidence
R v Kemp (1956)
The effect on the mind must be impacted by an internal factor existing at the time of the act.
R v Hennessy (1989)
If the defendant does not know what they are doing due to an external factor, they cannot
use the defence of insanity because this would not amount to a disease of the mind
R v Quick (1973)
The effect on the mind must be impacted by an internal factor existing at the time of the act
R v Burgess (1991)
Where the defendant voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance, which causes a temporary
psychotic episode, the defendant cannot use the defence of insanity. This is because
R v Coley (2013)
The Defendant Does Not Know The Nature and Quality of Their Action, Or If They Do Know
It, Does Not Know That The Action Is Wrong
, Capacity Defences
This refers to the physical quality of their act, rather than the moral quality. The defendant
may ‘not know’ because they are in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness,
or there was a lack of understanding
Or If They Do Know It, Does Not Know That The Action Is Wrong
- This refers to the moral quality of the act. If the defendant is aware that it is legally
wrong, they cannot use the defence of insanity. This is still the case even if the
defendant is suffering from a mental illness.
R v Windle (1952)
Verdict
- If the defendant successfully proves insanity, the verdict will be ‘not guilty by reason
of insanity’. The judge can then impose
1. A hospital order (with or without restrictions as to when the defendant may be
released)
2. A supervision order
3. An absolute discharge
Capacity Defences
- Can be used where the defendant can show their mental functions (their mental
capacity) was “diminished” or impaired
Insanity
Definition -
M’Naghten (1843)
- The defendant suffered from extreme paranoia and thought he was being persecuted
by the ‘Tories’. Due to this, he tried to kill a member of Parliament but instead ended
up killing his secretary.
- The defendant was found not guilty of murder, by reason of insanity.
1. Defect of reason
2. As a result of a disease of the mind
3. Which caused the defendant to not know the nature or quality of their act, or not
know what they were doing was wrong
The Defendant Must Be Suffering From a Defect of Reason
- The defendant must be deprived of their powers of reasoning. This does not include
absentmindedness or being confused.
R v Clarke (1972)
This Defect of Reason is Due to a ‘Disease of the Mind’
- ‘Disease of the mind’ is a legal term and not a medical one
- This can include mental or physical diseases, but they must affect the operation of
the mind. This must be supported by medical evidence
R v Kemp (1956)
The effect on the mind must be impacted by an internal factor existing at the time of the act.
R v Hennessy (1989)
If the defendant does not know what they are doing due to an external factor, they cannot
use the defence of insanity because this would not amount to a disease of the mind
R v Quick (1973)
The effect on the mind must be impacted by an internal factor existing at the time of the act
R v Burgess (1991)
Where the defendant voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance, which causes a temporary
psychotic episode, the defendant cannot use the defence of insanity. This is because
R v Coley (2013)
The Defendant Does Not Know The Nature and Quality of Their Action, Or If They Do Know
It, Does Not Know That The Action Is Wrong
, Capacity Defences
This refers to the physical quality of their act, rather than the moral quality. The defendant
may ‘not know’ because they are in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness,
or there was a lack of understanding
Or If They Do Know It, Does Not Know That The Action Is Wrong
- This refers to the moral quality of the act. If the defendant is aware that it is legally
wrong, they cannot use the defence of insanity. This is still the case even if the
defendant is suffering from a mental illness.
R v Windle (1952)
Verdict
- If the defendant successfully proves insanity, the verdict will be ‘not guilty by reason
of insanity’. The judge can then impose
1. A hospital order (with or without restrictions as to when the defendant may be
released)
2. A supervision order
3. An absolute discharge
