Crime CLIII-Insanity X
In
instances where the defendant inflicts some sort or type of harm to another
during an epileptic fit (a subtle momentary loss of awareness, which causes the
body to jerk and tremble), we once again have to look into the facts to
determine which of the following defenses would apply: -
1)
Automatism
2)
Insanity
When
the epileptic fit is brought on by external factors for example from the
excessive taking of drugs or drinking the defense that is available is
automatism.
When
the epileptic fit is brought on by internal factors or inherent factors the
defense that is available is insanity.
In
R v Sullivan (1983) the defendant in an epileptic fit kicked the victim a
86-year-old man in the head and body. The defendant was charged under section
18 and 20 of the Offences Against Persons Act (1861) and during the trial, the
trial judge directed the jury on insanity based on the fact that the epileptic
fit that the defendant suffered from was caused by internal or inherent
factors. The issue on hand was whether the appropriate defense was insanity or
automatism. The defendant appealed.
The
appeal was dismissed, and it was held that the trial judge’s direction was
correct. The epileptic fit was caused by internal and inherent factors and fell
under the scope of insanity i.e. it is classified or categorized as a disease
of the mind.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment