Criminal Law

Module: 3

1. Explain the legal principles established by the M’Naghten Rules relating to the defense of insanity, citing decided cases to illustrate your answer. (15 marks)

1. Marcus is a strong supporter of his town’s cricket team, Gabba Stars. He and his friends attend a match one afternoon and, much to their surprise, Gabba Stars loses the match by two runs. Some Gabba fans, including Marcus, go on a rampage and damage the opposing team’s clubhouse. In his defence before the court, Marcus claims that he had “lost it”, not knowing what he was doing and that he had just found himself “going along

Advise Marcus as to his criminal liability.  

Plan

What is insanity?

What is the legal principle?

Should I use the case?

What was established?

What cases should I use?

How do I conclude?

Plan #2

What is criminal liability?

Should I use Criminal damage?

Is he liable?

What defense does he have?

What case should I use?

How do I conclude?

This question is asking for the legal principles that was established in the M’Naghten case and also to provide cases to illustrate the answer.

To understand the M’Naghten rules, we’ll first have to understand what is Insanity. Insanity in English law is a defense to criminal charges based on the idea that the defendant was unable to understand what he was doing, or, that he was unable to understand that what he was doing was wrong; where the defendant claims, he was insane at the time of the crime, and where the defendant asserts he is insane at the time of trial. In the first situation, the defendant must show that he was either suffering from a disease which damaged the functioning of the mind and led to a defect of reason that prevented him from understanding what he was doing, or that he could not tell that what he was doing was wrong.

To further understanding such, we’ll now look at the M’Naghten case; in the case of Queen V M’Naghten, Daniel believed he was prosecuted by Tories and sought to assassinate the Prime Minister Robert Peel. Failing to accurately identify Peel from behind, he inadvertently shot the Prime Minister’s secretary, Edward Drummond, who died several weeks later. M’Naghten pleaded not guilty. Witnesses stated the mental state of which M’Naghten was in at the trial, and he was found not guilty, on the grounds of insanity. This verdict created a public outcry regarding the insanity defense and the issues was debated in the House of Lords. The medical evidence that was provided had shown at the time of the act this person was suffering from a defect of reason and disease of the mind . It was held that, to establish a defense on the grounds of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.

In the case of R v Windle, D killed his insane wife who was always threatening suicide. He killed her with 100 aspirin.  He said “I suppose they will hang me for this?” indicating he knew it was legally wrong, whereas he thought it was morally right. Even though he had Claimed he had communicative insanity, by saying what he had said it was clearly proved that he had known that the act in which he did was wrong and insanity could not have been used as a defense.

On the other hand, in the case of Kemp v R, D an elderly man suffered with arteriosclerosis caused unconsciousness, attacked his wife with a hammer during the night. 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.