Essay Plan: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of either the defence of insanity, or the defence of diminished responsibility. Explain how the law could be improved.

Essay Plan: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of either the defence of insanity, or the defence of diminished responsibility. Explain how the law could be improved.

Introduction

• Focus: This essay evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the insanity defence under English law and discusses potential reforms to improve its application.

• Thesis: While the defence of insanity has strengths, such as its focus on alleviating responsibility for those lacking mental capacity, it also has significant weaknesses due to its reliance on outdated legal principles rather than modern psychiatric understanding. Substantial reform is needed to align the law with contemporary medical knowledge.

Paragraph 1: Strengths of the Defence of Insanity

• Alleviating Responsibility:

◦ The insanity defence plays a crucial role in ensuring that defendants who genuinely lack the mental capacity to understand or control their actions are not held criminally liable. This is crucial for justice.

• M’Naghten Rules:

◦ The M’Naghten test, established nearly two centuries ago, remains a fundamental part of the insanity defence. It requires that the defendant was either unaware of the nature of the act or unable to understand that it was wrong due to a “disease of the mind.”

◦ Effectiveness Over Time:

▪ The test's longevity indicates its effectiveness in filtering out cases where mental incapacity genuinely precludes criminal responsibility.

• Burden of Proof:

◦ The burden of proving insanity is on the defendant, which is unusual but serves as a safeguard against the defence being misused. This prevents questionable claims of insanity from easily succeeding.

◦ P. Roberts’ View:

▪ Roberts describes the defence as an "exceptional historical accident," highlighting its peculiarity in modern law, but this also points to its effectiveness in maintaining a high bar for success.

Paragraph 2: Weaknesses of the Defence of Insanity

◦ The primary weakness of the insanity defence is its reliance on legal terms that do not align with modern psychiatric understanding. The term “disease of the mind” is a legal construct, not a medical one, leading to confusion and inconsistency.

◦ Case Examples:

▪ R v Coley (2013): The defendant was found to have acted due to a psychotic episode caused by voluntary intoxication. The court ruled that this did not constitute a "disease of the mind," highlighting the disconnect between legal and medical interpretations.

▪ R v Windle (1952) and R v Keal (2022): Windle restricted the insanity defence by ruling that defendants who know their actions are legally wrong cannot claim insanity, even if they believe them to be morally justified. This was later narrowed in Keal (2022), but the case law still reflects an overly restrictive approach.

• Need for Reform:

◦ The law's reliance on outdated concepts and inconsistent application calls for significant reform rather than piecemeal improvements. The legal definition of insanity needs to be updated to reflect current psychiatric knowledge.

Paragraph 3: Proposals for Improvement

• Redefining “Disease of the Mind”:

◦ The term “disease of the mind” should be redefined or replaced to encompass a broader range of mental conditions, including those not limited to the brain. This would align the law with contemporary understanding of mental health.

◦ Case Examples:

▪ R v Kemp (1957): The defendant, who suffered from arteriosclerosis, was deemed insane under the M’Naghten Rules, although his condition was physical, not mental. This case highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes a "disease of the mind."

▪ Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963) and R v Sullivan (1984): These cases contain contradictory dicta on what qualifies as a disease of the mind, demonstrating the confusion in the current legal framework.

• Law Commission Proposal:

◦ The Law Commission has proposed reforms that include modernising the language of the insanity defence and ensuring it reflects current medical and psychiatric knowledge. Their proposal suggests replacing the insanity defence with a broader “mental disorder” defence that better accommodates various mental conditions.

◦ Benefits of Reform:

▪ Such reform would make the law more consistent, fair, and aligned with medical science. It would also ensure that defendants are judged according to contemporary standards of mental health, reducing the stigma associated with the current insanity label.

Conclusion

• Summary: The insanity defence has notable strengths, such as its role in protecting defendants who genuinely lack mental capacity and the M’Naghten test’s longevity. However, it suffers from significant weaknesses due to outdated legal terminology and a disconnect from modern psychiatric understanding.

• Final Argument: Comprehensive reform, as proposed by the Law Commission, is necessary to update the insanity defence, making it more consistent with current medical knowledge and ensuring it serves justice more effectively.