The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

With regards to the defense of insanity, a wrongful act is an act that is defined as an act that is legally wrong and not morally wrong i.e. it must be an act that is in breach of either common law or statutory law and as long as the defendant can appreciate or understand that his actions are legally wrong than the defense of insanity would not be  made available to him. The defense of insanity only comes into play when the defendant is not capable of understanding the nature of his or her act or is not able to comprehend the seriousness of the offence. In R v Windle (1952) the defendant administered an aspirin overdose to his suicidal wife, who was terminally ill. He was without doubt suffering from a mental condition but during his arrest, he said to the arresting officers “I suppose that they will hang me for this” which implied that the defendant knew that his act was legally wrong, and he was able to understand the seriousness of his act. He was tried and convicted, an

At the start of the trial, when the defendant is charged, he is charged on the presumption that he is sane and it is up to the defense to rebut the presumption of sanity i.e. to prove that the defendant is not sane. In M'Naghten (1843) the defendant attempted to kill the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, and instead shot and killed his secretary Edward Drummond. At the time of the killing the defendant was suffering from insane delusions i.e. a false conception of reality. It was held that in all instances the jury is to be told that the defendant is presumed to be sane at the time of the crime and this presumption is valid until the defense can prove otherwise and in order for the defense of insanity to be successful it must be clearly proved by way of evidence that the defendant was laboring under such defect of reason due to a disease of the mind that he or she was unable to know the nature and quality of the act. In 1883 the Trial of Lunatics Act was passed and as

In R v Pritchard (1836) the defendant was deaf and mute, and it was decided that before the court or a jury can reach a verdict three factors had to be taken into account: - 1.      Whether the defendant is mute of malice 2.      Whether the defendant can plead 3.      Whether the defendant understands or comprehends the charges against him or her – Alderson B. If the jury find that they could not communicate with the defendant or the defendant could not understand the charges against him or her than the jury should find the defendant unfit to plead. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward

The defense of insanity is a defense that is available to all crimes. When the judge or the jury finds that the defendant falls under the scope of the defense, the verdict that is to be returned is the verdict of not guilty by virtue of insanity. Insanity differs from diminished responsibility (which is also a defense on a charge of murder or intending to cause GBH (grievous bodily harm)) in that insanity is caused by inherent factors and diminished responsibility is cause by external, often extenuating circumstances, for example repeated abuse or aggravating someone who is intolerant of the victim’s actions. The latter is more in line with the defense of automatism though automatism is usually the result of the excessive consumption of alcohol or the excessive taking of drugs, or a failure to do something, that the defendant who is under medication should do, for example taking insulin without eating any food and thus going into hypoglycemia. All three defenses, while t

Intoxication need not be raised if the defendant is suffering from a mental impairment that falls under S. 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. The fact that the defendant is suffering from a recognized mental ailment is sufficient to reduce a charge of murder to that of manslaughter S. 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 reads as follows: - Persons suffering from diminished responsibility.  (1) A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which— (a) arose from a recognized medical condition, (b) substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and (c) provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. In R v Hendy (2006) the accused a 16-year-old was suffering from some sort of mental impairment as a result of a head injury that he sustained as a child. He was callous and

The rule in R v O’Grady (1987) with regards to a mistake of facts induced by self-intoxication was reaffirmed in the 2005 case of R v Hatton, in that, a defendant cannot validly raise the defense of self-defense when he caused the death of another under a mistaken belief that was precipitated by the excessive consumption of alcohol or the taking of drugs. In R v Hatton (2005) the defendant and the victim met at a pub. The victim was a manic depressive and was prescribed lithium to keep his illness under control. On the day in question the defendant had not taken his lithium and the alcohol in is blood was above twice the legal limit. The defendant and the victim met in a pub. They did not know each other prior to that and on the day, the victim was acting strangely and passed himself off as a former member of the SAS and was exhibiting his martial arts skills. Both men had been drinking heavily and left together in the defendant’s car. The defendant drove the victim to his h

In instances of horseplay, the test that is to be applied, in order to decide if the defendant is guilty or otherwise, is the subjective test i.e. the question that is to be asked is whether the defendant had intended to cause the victim the harm that had resulted and not if a reasonable man can foresee that some harm would result from the defendant’s actions. In most instances in order to obtain a conviction the prosecution must establish that the defendant’s actions were beyond what could be construed as mere horseplay. In Richardson and Irwin (1999) two students lifted another over a balcony, after a bout of evening drinking and dropped him some twelve feet causing him serious injuries. The court decided that the defendants were not guilty. Clearly the boys were fooling around, and they had no intention of causing any form or type of injury to their friend. In such instances the question that is to be asked is whether the boys intended to cause the defendant the harm tha