Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Sec 84
It
embodies two different mental
conditions to claim exemption from
criminal liability :
about
those
man by reason of
to appreciate b/w
Concept
Claims insanity as a
defence at the time of
trial--This category is more
of procedural in nature
R. V. Mc Naughten. ( 1843)
Defence
This phrase refers to the physical nature and quality of the act,
rather than the moral quality. It covers the situation where the
defendant does not know what he is physically doing.
Two common examples used are:
Kemp, R v
(1957) Devlin J
D an elderly man suffered with arteriosclerosis caused
unconsciousness,
attacked wife with hammer during the night.
Held: Hardening of the arteries may cause damage to the brain cells which
may be a "disease of the mind" but the physical state of brain irrelevant, it is
whether the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding are
impaired or absent; in this case it was the flow of blood that affected the
mind, not destruction of brain cells.
Per curium: The condition of the brain, whether the defect of reason is
transient or permanent or whether it is curable, is irrelevant.
Bailey V. R 1983
Insanity - automatism - self-induced - available
for specific or basic intent in some circumstances
Hennessy, R v (1989)
CA
Guilty
Quick (1973) CA
Lawton LJ: 'a self-induced incapacity will not excuse ... nor will one which
could have been reasonably foreseen as a result of either doing or
omitting to do something, for example, taking alcohol against medical
advice after using certain prescribed drugs or failing to have regular meals
while taking insulin.
Not guilty
not
the
Sullivan V R 1983
Guilty
Comment: On his conviction, a probation order, with medical supervision,
represented an altogether more advantageous outcome than the order
which the court would have been obliged to make if the defence of insanity
had been established
Windle, R v (1952) CA
Lakshmi
Lakshmi V
V State
State 1963
1963
Dayabhai
Dayabhai Chhaganbahi
Chhaganbahi Thannkar
Thannkar V
V Guj
Guj
(( 1964)
1964)
Wife
Wife killed
killed by
by husband
husband ..
.. Did
Did not
not take
take
her
her to
to her
her workplace
workplace
Did
Did not
not like
like her
her and
and wanted
wanted his
his FIL
FIL to
to
take
take her
her away
away
When
When the
the FIL
FIL did
did not
not take
take her
her on
on the
the
promised
promised day
day ....The
....The victim
victim was
was killed
killed
Proof
Proof of
of insanity
insanity not
not sufficient
sufficient to
to
convince
convince the
the court
court about
about insanity
insanity
The
Appeal
dismissed
The Appeal dismissed
Sheralli
Sheralli Wali
Wali Mohd
Mohd V
V St
St of
of Mahratra
Mahratra
(( 1972)
1972)
Killed
Killed his
his wife
wife and
and female
female child..
child..
Though
Though the
the accused
accused brothers
brothers pleaded
pleaded
insanity
insanity ....
.... It
It could
could not
not be
be inferred
inferred
from
from the
the way
way the
the act
act was
was committed
committed
The
The appeal
appeal was
was dismissed
dismissed
Irresistible Impulse
Automatism