R v Keal [2022]

1. Facts:

• D was convicted of attempted murder of three family members.

• D argued his delusion prevented him from knowing the act was wrong, as "wrong" means both legally and morally wrong by the standard of a reasonable person.

• D had a long history of mental health problems; four psychiatrists testified, and D claimed "it’s the devil" during the attack.

2. Outcome:

• D was convicted despite arguing his delusion.

• The court held that his delusion did not fulfil the McNaughton test for insanity, focusing on the "wrong" aspect of the act.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Narrowing of Insanity Defence: The case illustrates an arguably unnecessary narrowing of the insanity defence by emphasising both legal and moral wrongness.

• ‘Right Kind’ of Insanity: The decision indicates a trend towards rejecting delusions unless they meet specific legal criteria, even with substantial psychiatric evidence.

• Mental Health Considerations: Highlights the complexities in adjudicating cases involving severe mental health issues within the strict framework of the McNaughton test.