Insanity

Insanity

To prove insanity,  the rules established in R v M'Naghten must be fulfiled;

1. First of all,  a defendant must be acquitted if,  because of the disease of mind, he/she did not know the nature and quality of his/her act.

2. If,  because of the disease of the mind,  he/she did not know his or her act was wrong,  even if he/she did know the nature and quality of his/her act.

So this means there are three criteria that needs to be established at courts which is basically to be insane;

"a person must be suffering from a defect of reason,  arising from a disease of mind which prevent him/her to know the nature and quality of the act he/she was doing or what he/she doing is wrong. "

Disease of the mind
Basically means a disease that produces mental malfunctioning and it can be a physical or a mental disease. In Bratty v AG,  Lord Denning defined it as" any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of mind".

In R v Kemp,  the condition of the brain does not matter,  it is whether the condition of the mind is curable or incurable,  transitory or permanent.

It must be an internal factor,  arising from the body as in R v Hennessy not from a external factor as in R v Quick

Defect of reason
Basically inability to use reasoning to defend his/her actions not failing to use his/her  powers of reasoning as in R v Clarke.

Not knowing the nature and quality of his/her act or did not know what he/she done was wrong

Nature and quality of act
It refers to the physical quality of act.  People acting in delusions do not know the nature and quality of their act as they do not know the consequences of his/her actions and the circumstances he/she is acting in.

Not knowing the act was wrong
Basically means he defendant did not know what he/she is doing is legally wrong as in R v Windle.