Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.20

Problem Question

Margaret has been suffering from delusions in which she believed she was the Queen of England. She also believed her sovereign power gave her the right to behead any of her subjects. One day, she attacked her neighbour, Ben, with hedge clippers, causing him severe injury. Would she be able to use the defence of insanity? Which defence(s) could she use if Ben died?

Analysis

1. Liability for GBH

Actus Reus (AR) and Mens Rea (MR) for GBH:

• AR: The act of attacking Ben with hedge clippers and causing severe injury clearly constitutes the actus reus of Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

• MR: The mens rea for GBH is either the intention to cause some harm or recklessness as to whether some harm would occur. If Margaret had the intention to cause harm, the mens rea requirement would be satisfied.

2. Defence of Insanity

M’Naghten Rules:

• To establish the defence of insanity, Margaret would need to satisfy the M’Naghten rules, which require proving that at the time of the offence, she was suffering from a "defect of reason" caused by a "disease of the mind" such that:

1. She did not know the nature and quality of the act she was doing; or

2. She did not know that what she was doing was wrong.

Application of M’Naghten Rules to Margaret:

• Defect of Reason: Margaret’s delusion that she is the Queen of England and has the sovereign right to behead her subjects could be considered a "defect of reason" arising from a "disease of the mind" (likely a form of psychosis).

• Nature and Quality of the Act: Margaret understood the physical nature of her actions (attacking Ben with hedge clippers), so she knew the nature and quality of the act.

• Knowledge of Wrongdoing: The critical issue is whether Margaret knew her actions were legally and morally wrong. According to the case R v Windle [1952], if the defendant knows that the act is contrary to the law, the insanity defence may not apply, even if they believe their actions are morally justified. However, in R v Keal [2022], it was emphasised that the defendant must be shown to have known the act was wrong by the standards of the law and by the standard of a reasonable person.

◦ Margaret's Belief: Margaret believed she had a legal right to behead her subjects because she thought she was the Queen. If this belief led her to genuinely believe that her actions were lawful, she might argue that she did not know the act was wrong, satisfying the M’Naghten criteria for insanity. However, by the standard of a reasonable person, the act would clearly be considered wrong, which creates a challenge in applying this defence.

3. Potential Defences if Ben Died

Murder Charge:

• If Ben died as a result of the attack, Margaret could be charged with murder. The key question would be whether she had the requisite mens rea (intent to kill or cause serious harm) and whether any defences could reduce or negate her liability.

Defence of Diminished Responsibility (DR):

• Under s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957, Margaret might plead diminished responsibility to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. For DR, she must prove that she was suffering from an "abnormality of mental functioning" which arose from a "recognised medical condition," substantially impairing her ability to understand the nature of her conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control.

◦ Application of DR: Margaret’s delusions and potential diagnosis of a psychotic disorder could be argued as an "abnormality of mental functioning" that impaired her rational judgment, particularly if the jury finds that her belief in her sovereign right to behead was a significant factor in her actions.

Conclusion on Defences:

• Insanity Defence: Margaret could potentially use the insanity defence for both GBH and murder, depending on whether she genuinely did not know her actions were wrong due to her delusions. If she satisfies the M’Naghten rules, she could be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

• Diminished Responsibility: If charged with murder, Margaret might use diminished responsibility to reduce the charge to manslaughter, arguing that her mental condition substantially impaired her ability to form a rational judgment at the time of the attack.