R v Windle [1952]

1. Facts:

• D assisted his suicidal wife in taking an overdose, subsequently claiming insanity.

• D was aware of the legal consequences of his actions.

2. Outcome:

• D was convicted of murder.

• The court held that the use of the word "wrong" in the insanity defence refers to the legal unlawfulness of the act.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Definition of ‘Wrong’: The ruling clarified that "wrong" means unlawful. If D knew the act was unlawful, the insanity defence is not applicable, even if D believed the act was morally right.

• Expansion in Keal: Further solidified that "wrong" focuses on legal, not moral, interpretation.

• Legal Precedent: Establishes that the insanity defence is strictly tied to the legal knowledge of the defendant, thus narrowing the scope for claiming insanity based on moral beliefs. This definition of ‘wrong’ was expanded in Keal 2022