Crime CLIX-Insanity XVI
In
R v Johnson (2007) we look at the defense of insanity as it applies to those
who suffer from schizophrenia and if the principle that was set in R v Windle
(1952) applies or extends to paranoid schizophrenics or if an exception can be
made for those who suffer from the ailment.
As
per the rule in R v Windle (1952) the defense will not be made available to the
defendant if the defendant knew what he was doing or had cognizance of his
actions.
In
R v Johnson (2007), the defendant was charged with wounding to cause grievous
bodily harm (GBH) as per s18 & s20 of the Offences Against Person Act
(1861). He was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia but at the trial the
defense of insanity was not made available to him because medical evidence
suggested that the defendant knew or was aware of what he was doing.
The
defense appealed on the grounds that the defense of insanity should have been
made available to the defendant and the issue at hand was whether the scope or
the parameters of the defense could be widened to cover those who, despite
knowing what they were doing, suffered from acute mental illnesses.
The
appeal was dismissed and it was decided that the rule in R v Windle (1952)
would apply. The defense would only avail itself to the defendant or be made
available to the defendant, if he was not aware, through some disease of mind,
of what he was doing.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment