Crime CLX-Insanity XVII
For
anyone who is wondering why the defendant would rather be found not guilty by
way of automatism instead of not guilty by way of insanity (see R v Kemp
(1957), R v Sullivan (1983), R v Hennessy (1989), R v Burgess (1991) and R
v Johnson (2007)), the answer is because, if the defendant is found not
guilty by way of insanity he or she may have to spend some time in a mental
institution (a secure detention facility) as per s.5 of the Criminal Procedure
(Insanity) Act 1964.
Whereas,
if the defendant is found not guilty by way of automatism, he or she is
absolved of all criminal charges and the judge is not empowered to detain the
defendant in a mental institution. Therefore, whether the defendant is found
not guilty by way of insanity or not guilty by way of automatism becomes
crucial, to the defendant, during sentencing.
S.5
of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 reads as follows:-
Powers
to deal with persons not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to
plead etc.
(1)
This section applies where—
(a)
A special verdict is returned that the accused is not guilty by reason of
insanity; or
(b)
Findings have been made that the accused is under a disability and that he did
the act or made the omission charged against him.
2. The court shall make in respect of the accused—
(a)
Powers to deal with persons not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to
plead etc.
(1)
This section applies where—
(a)
A special verdict is returned that the accused is not guilty by reason of
insanity; or
(b)
Findings have been made that the accused is under a disability and that he did
the act or made the omission charged against him.
(2)
The court shall make in respect of the accused—
(a)
A hospital order (with or without a restriction order);
(b)
A supervision order; or
(c)
An order for his absolute discharge.
(3)
Where—
(a)
The offence to which the special verdict or the findings relate is an offence
the sentence for which is fixed by law, and
(b)
The court have power to make a hospital order,
The
court shall make a hospital order with a restriction order (whether or not they
would have power to make a restriction order apart from this subsection).
(4)
In this section—
“hospital
order” has the meaning given in section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983;
“restriction
order” has the meaning given to it by section 41 of that Act;
“Supervision
order” has the meaning given in Part 1 of Schedule 1A to this Act.
A
hospital order (with or without a restriction order);
(b)
A supervision order; or
(c)
An order for his absolute discharge.
(3)
Where—
(a)
The offence to which the special verdict or the findings relate is an offence
the sentence for which is fixed by law, and
(b)
The court have power to make a hospital order,
The
court shall make a hospital order with a restriction order (whether or not they
would have power to make a restriction order apart from this subsection).
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment