{"id":396,"date":"2019-04-24T15:34:45","date_gmt":"2019-04-24T15:34:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2021-10-22T08:06:09","modified_gmt":"2021-10-22T08:06:09","slug":"mnaghten-rule-knowledge-wrong-8377","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/criminal-law\/mnaghten-rule-knowledge-wrong-8377.php","title":{"rendered":"M’Naghten Rules: Knowledge of Wrong and the Windle Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some have argued that the wrongness limb should be abandoned altogether. For example, the Butler Report was not only critical of Windle <\/em>but also of \u201cmoral\u201d wrongness, stating<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIt might seem at first sight more attractive to have regard to the defendant\u2019s appreciation of what is morally wrong, but the problems in applying such a test to the mentally disordered would be very great. \u2018Knowledge of wrong\u2019 as included in M\u2019Naghten, is not therefore a satisfactory test of criminal responsibility.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Critically analyse this comment from The Butler Report and with reference to cases such as Windle<\/em> express a view whether the Law Commission ought to have retained the current test of \u2018moral wrongness\u2019.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

This essay will explore the understanding of M\u2019Naghten Rules and the exploration of the Windle case<\/a>. It will consider whether the \u201cKnowledge of Wrong\u201d as defined by M\u2019Naghten is a satisfactory test of criminality or not, and explore the argument for a review.<\/p>\n

The M\u2019Naghten rule has been around since 1843 when the Judges ruled in the case that \u201cto establish a defence on the ground of insanity<\/a>, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong\u201d.[1]<\/a> [2]<\/a> [3]<\/a><\/p>\n

It also worth noting that the whole concept of using insanity as a defence \u00a0came on in the early 18th<\/sup> century in the Arnold\u2019s Case. Edward Arnold advanced argument for shooting Lord Onslow was based on insanity; the trial judge Mr. Justice Tracy in advising the jury stated<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c[A] man that is totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than an infant, than a brute, or a wild beast, such a one is never the object of punishment.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is popularly referred to as the \u201cwild beast test<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Over the years, there has been a wide range of developments in law and society and this will be reflect in this essay in my analysis of the comment from the Butler report.<\/p>\n

Pre- M\u2019Naughten Rule Developments<\/h2>\n

It is important to discuss some of the historic precedents that occurred before the M\u2019Naughten landmark case. Sir Matthew Hale (1736) in his well thought analysis pointed out that \u201cIf a man in his sound memory commits a capital offense, and before his arraignment he becomes absolutely mad, he ought not by law to be arraigned during such his phrenzy, but be remitted to prison until that incapacity be removed; the reason is, because he cannot advisedly plead to the indictment. . . . And if such person after his plea, and before his trial, become of\u00a0non sane memory,<\/em>\u00a0he shall not be tried; or, if after his trial he become of\u00a0non sane memory,<\/em>\u00a0he shall not receive judgment; or, if after judgment he become of\u00a0non sane memory,<\/em>\u00a0his execution shall be spared; for were he of sound memory, he might allege somewhat in stay of judgment or execution.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

Another significant milestone occurred in 1760 when Lord Ferrers killed one his Estate Steward \u2013 John Johnson. He defended himself and claimed to have suffered from mental illness and further produced evidence for it. However the court did not believed his evidence and was sentenced to death by hanging. Though many believed that he did behave in an odd way and this may have been exacerbated by alcohol.<\/p>\n

Thomas Erskine\u2019s representation of James Hadfield in June 1800 presents another landmark in the discourse of Mental Health and Law. James Hadfield had attempted to kill King George in front of Theatre Royal in Drury lane, London. Erskine\u00a0 presented the argument that\u00a0 Mr Hatfield was suffering from delusion and had being examined and adjudged by the specialists to suffer from delusions which may have been brought about by his previous head injury that he sustained during the war with France in 1794.<\/p>\n

The case was upheld and was sent to the hospital. This case led to the enactment of the Lunatics Act of 1800. The act reinforced the need to acquittal of all \u201cin all cases where it shall be given in evidence upon the trial of any person charged with treason, murder, or felony, that such person was insane at the time of the commission of such offence, and such person shall be acquitted, the jury shall be required to find specially whether such person was insane at the time of the commission of such offence, and to declare whether such person was acquitted by them on account of such insanity; and if they shall find that such person was insane at the time of the committing such offence, the court before whom such trial shall be had, shall order such person to be kept in strict custody, in such place and in such manner as to the court shall see fit, until His Majesty\u2019s pleasure shall be known.\u201d\u00a0[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

This marked a change and a departure from previous approach. Individuals adjudged to be mentally ill could be discharged by court to go home. Whilst this act opened up the gate way for incarceration and treatment in asylums, the foundation for modern day law was beginning to be unveiled. This act was soon followed by establishment of institutions for the criminally insane. This started the introduction of the role of forensic Hospitals as they later came to be known. The County Asylums Act of 1808 provided the legal backing to the establishment of these institutions.<\/p>\n

What started in 1811 with one institution had grown to nine institutions in 1827. \u00a0\u00a0These began the rise of psychiatry and hospitals playing a pivotal role in the management of the people who have mental illness and have committed crimes.<\/p>\n

The M\u2019Naghten Rule<\/h2>\n

In 1843 came an historical and landmark ruling that will dominate the legal landscape for a number over a decade. Mr Daniel M\u2019Naghten killed Edward Drummond the private secretary to Sir Robert Peel. He killed him thinking he was the Prime Minister and had felt he was conspiring against him and watching all of his movements. This defence of Insanity was presented as his defence and his family narrated the history of his mental illness and evidence of being assessed whilst he was in prison. The judge directed the jury by saying that \u201cthe question to be determined is, whether at the time the act in question was\u00a0committed,\u00a0the prisoner had or had not the use of his understanding, so as to know that he was doing a wrong or wicked act.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

The jury in this case acquitted Mr M\u2019Naghten and sent him to the Bethlem Hospital. There was a big public outcry from the members of the House of Parliament and consequently prompted Lord Lyndhurst who was the Lord Chancellor to instigate a debate at the House of Lord about the Criminal responsibility of people with mental illness, though at the time refers to it as insanity. This led to the promulgation of the Lunacy Act of 1845. Through the act was the establishment of Lunacy commission which was charged with the responsibility of transfer of people from prison to the asylums regulated under the act.<\/p>\n

This changed the status of people transferred into asylums. Prisoners became patients under the supervision of medical personnel and could be discharged on the advice of the doctors.<\/p>\n

This marked a precedent for the court in establishing a defence on the ground of insanity. This could only be used after the defendant has managed to prove that he or she was not of a sound mind or suffering from a disease of mind as to not be able to know the nature and quality of his or her\u00a0 action, or he or she was not able to distinguish its wrongfulness.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Butler Report<\/h2>\n

There has been a number of varying attitudes to the mentally disordered offenders. This has been between the use of the criminal justice system with the offender being sentenced to prison, and the use of psychiatric hospitals. In some cases, there has been the establishment of a psychiatric hospital within the prison, but also the use of \u2018special hospitals\u2019 like the Broadmoor and Rampton hospitals. The promulgation of the 1959 Mental Health Act however, has meant that psychiatric hospitals are most likely destination for the mentally disordered offenders. The controversies and public outcry in the Graham Young case who committed another grave offense on trial leave from Broadmoor was part of the prelude to the Butler committee for a major review.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

The establishment of the Mental Health Act presupposes that the Psychiatrists have a special status in the determination of the faith of the mentally disordered offenders and the notion that criminal behaviour of this group of offenders stem from mental illness and if cured or managed, the criminal behaviour will cease to exist. Consequently, the numbers of offenders grew very rapidly since the introduction of the Act to the extent that the Butler report indicated that \u2018\u2026\u2026.. it is not too much to say that we have been astonished and shocked at the overcrowding, particularly in Broadmoor, where in some wards the beds in rows right across the room are no more than 18 inches apart\u2019[10]<\/a>[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Butler Committee (Chairman, Lord Butler) remit was to review and advise or make recommendations to the law relating to offenders. \u00a0The most important recommendation in the report relates to the request of the provision of secure hospitals to be financed by direct allocation of central government funds. This was to maintain the balance between public protection and the care of the mentally ill.<\/p>\n

As part of their report, they referred to the M\u2019Naghten rule and said\u00a0 that \u201cIt might seem at first sight more attractive to have regard to the defendant\u2019s appreciation of what is morally wrong, but the problems in applying such a test to the mentally disordered would be very great. \u2018Knowledge of wrong\u2019 as included in M\u2019Naghten, is not therefore a satisfactory test of criminal responsibility.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

Central to the criticism is the Windle case. Mr Windle killed his wife who was suicidal. There was a comprehensive evidence that he was suffering from mental illness at the time the offence was committed. During the interrogation by the police, he said \u201cI suppose they will hang me for this\u201d. This was seen as evidence of insight and understanding that he knew what he was doing and his illness does not play a part in the murder. The judge in this case refused the appeal. [13]<\/a>However, the Butler committee does not believe the knowledge of wrong is not a satisfactory test.<\/p>\n

The rule is based on the assumption that \u201cWestern civilisation rests on the premise that normal adults are rational and therefore have a very significant sphere of freedom and autonomy\u201d[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

This criticism and support for the M\u2019Naghten rule remains a constant debate.<\/p>\n

Proponents of support for M\u2019Naghten rule argued that what it requires is a \u2018repair rather than replacement\u2019. Professor Jerome Hall raised a number of issues with the argument about replacement. Hall\u2019s defence of the M\u2019Naghten rules has made him a champion of retention or, at most, cautious amendment. And his vigorous attacks, theoretical and practical, on the concept of strict liability in criminal law have been cited by many courts.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

He explained that if M\u2019Naghten rule is abandoned it will lead to a grave mistake and consequence he described as \u201ctyranny of experts\u201d.[16]<\/a> Hall is a proponent of strict and pure adherence to criminal law process. He believed that psychiatry campaign to destroy M\u2019Naghten rule of criminal responsibility has been relentless. He argued that we should use the best truth in courts and law will be in danger if justices have to allow certain philosophical versions of psychiatry. He argued that the broad meaning of mental illness can be against personal responsibility and other basic values of a democratic society. There are various schools of thoughts in psychiatry and concern about interpretation of deviation from social norms and insanity can be problematic.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is argued that \u2018M\u2019Naghten test is intellectualistic and moralistic, and not medical\u2019.[18]<\/a> The M\u2019Naghten rule, by the way, does not ask whether the law-breaker knew the difference between right and wrong. It asks whether he \u201cknew he was doing what was wrong\u201d or, perhaps, thought he was doing what was right; that is, whether he was under a delusion to act in legitimate self-defence. On the other hand, a paranoiac with delusional ideas to the effect that someone is destroying his social position by spreading vicious rumours about him (e.g., that he is a homosexual) would not be exempt from punishment because, if the content of his delusional ideas were true, he still would not have the right to kill his pursuer but would have to seek redress in some other way. This is spelled out in the second M\u2019Naghten rule which stipulates with reference to what it calls \u201cpartial delusions\u201d that the law-breaker \u201cmust be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the act in respect to which the delusion exists were real.\u201d That is, it must be asked whether a person would be liable to punishment if it were true that his victim had spread vicious rumours about him but he would not be liable to punishment if it were true that he defended his life[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

Criticisms of M\u2019Naghten Rule<\/h2>\n

One of the major criticisms is the second limb of the M\u2019Naghten rule.\u00a0 The strict approach adopted in R v Windle <\/em>that individuals with Psychiatric conditions can be sent to prison just on the basis of their awareness of the wrong or right of their actions.<\/p>\n

A number of countries have varied views on M\u2019Naghten rule.\u00a0 In Chaulk,[20]<\/a> The Supreme court of Canada expressed that the concept of wrong must go beyong a legal definition. It raised the issue of individuals who may be responding to command hallucination that its believed to be a divine order which they feel they must obey, hence not feel that it is morally wrong. In Australia, the High Court of Australia in deciding on the case of R v Stapleton[21]<\/a> came to the conclusion that Windle case was wrongly decided because the standard of what was considered as wrong was not according to the principles of reasonable men but according to the legal standards. According to Moore, only individuals that can appreciate moral principles can be seen as rational and only rational moral agents can be responsible in law[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

M\u2019Naghten rule has found its way into the American legal system and somewhat pushed beyond the rule. The \u2018product rule\u2019 was introduced in the United States following the introduction of the \u2018New Hampshire Rule\u2019, this was because the test was about whether the committal of an offence was a product of mental illness or disease or a defect \u2018[23]<\/a>\u00a0 The Durham case further intensified the influence of the M\u2019Naghten rule in the American system. Goldstein & Marcus (1974) stated that there were problems with the product rule in the Durham case. It raises the question of the definition of what constitute mental disease or defect. They argued that psychiatrists for defence and prosecution are often in disagreement in court and there is no standard way of resolving this conflicting advice and testimony in court.[24]<\/a> The McDonald v United States made \u00a0an attempt at resolving the problem, but failed in its attempt to redefine mental disease or defect to include \u2018any abnormal condition which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs behaviour controls\u2019. This redefinition is overly broad and give opportunity for all sorts of emotion issues being classified under this category.[25]<\/a><\/p>\n

Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University in his article in a US newspaper \u2013 \u2018US Today\u2019, argues that a society which fails to \u201crecognize the difference between a premeditated and delusional act,\u201d is immoral. He gave examples of four states, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah, that have eliminated the insanity defence altogether. Other states have moved to curtail the insanity defence in significant ways.[26]<\/a><\/p>\n

The \u201cModel Penal Code of the American Law Institute [ALI] in an attempt to resolve the limitations in bringing both the cognitive and volitional test together asserts that \u201ca person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.\u201d\u00a0 In essence, modifications to the M\u2019Naghten rule.[27]<\/a><\/p>\n

Kenny A (1984) described the inadequacy of the modification by saying that \u201cthe occurrence of an irresistible impulse is generally admitted to be something that cannot be established by science, it is clearly not something on which expert testimony can speak with authority. But I would go further: The difficulty in telling the difference between the unresisted and irresistible impulse is not a temporary and contingent one which progresses in science may remove. The notion of irresistible impulse is an incoherent piece of nonsense \u201c(Kenny 1984:29)[28]<\/a><\/p>\n

Judges have given a much modern interpretation in practice to the M\u2019Naghten rule. The Crown Court Bench Book (March 2010) guidance to the Judges on how to direct the jury, defined \u2018the diseased of the mind\u2019 as \u201can impairment of mental functioning caused by a medical condition\u201d[29]<\/a><\/p>\n

This has allowed general and broad based interpretation of the rule. This has started to accommodate the areas that are not commonly regarded as mental disorders, like people who suffer from epilepsy and sleep walking. This has meant that the interpretation is about lack of control due to an internal disorder. If we were to exclude external causative actions like violence, drugs and alcohol. But this in itself presents a different problem of interpretation as there are areas that can be advanced to cross between the internal and external causation. Diabetes for example may have had its causation as a result excessive alcohol consumption or failure to comply with medication, and to absolve individual of responsibilities under the law can be seen as a travesty of justice.[30]<\/a><\/p>\n

M\u2019Naghten use of the term insanity has been attacked as being out of touch and outdated and not in consonance with advances in modern medical and psychological treatment. Dr James Reed (a consultant forensic psychiatrist) wrote in response to the Scoping Paper: \u201cthe present test does not really relate in any meaningful way to the practice of psychiatry. Therefore diversions into discussions about the M\u2019Naghten rules are not very helpful in conveying an understanding of the clinical situation to the court\u201d. Many other jurisdictions have met these concerns by recently reforming their insanity test by legislation (Scotland in 2010, Ireland in 2006) or at common law (Canada, Australia)[31]<\/a><\/p>\n

The term Insane in itself can be seen as offensive and a derogatory term that is used in modern society.\u00a0 Having worked in mental health for 25 years, the term insanity is seen as disrespectful and not a terminology that is used within the service.<\/p>\n

One major argument of that the M\u2019Naghten rule has been the burden of proof of insanity is raised. In English Law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defendant but under the M\u2019Naghten rule, the burden of proof is on the defence. Whilst presenting a defence, the tendency may be to see the individual as rational in presenting a coherent argument to defend him or herself and this may potentially lead to miscarriage of justice.<\/p>\n

The Law Commission<\/h2>\n

Should the Law Commission ought to have retained the current test of \u2018moral wrongness\u2019. I support the assertion of Professor Hall in the purity of law to ensure wrong is appropriately judge and justice for the victims.[32]<\/a> This does not negate lack of compassion for the mentally ill. Prisons have ways of managing and supporting people with health problems and the mentally ill is not precluded in this provision. The suggestion of the law commission proposal \u00a0did consider ways in which to amend the rules but seeking to abolish the common law of defence of automatism and only make it available where there is a total loss of capacity to control actions and is based on medical conditions being proven.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

M\u2019Naghten rule controversy has been a continuous subject of debate for the last 100 years and more, however it remains that despite the depth of criticisms the rule continues to play an important part in law.<\/p>\n

The increase understanding in science and medicine and especially in Neuro science have meant that it is possible to detect capacity of making decisions at what intervals and making it easier to resolve the legal and moral judgement of past behaviours.<\/p>\n

It remains a sound principle of penal responsibility and whilst there may be areas of development to take into consideration for amendments, the principle of irrationality should continue as criteria for insanity. The law commission is wise to retain the current test as attempts to change have remained less than satisfactory. I also agree with the Commission\u2019s conclusion that the test may need to be tweaked rather than a full scale change.<\/p>\n

List of Cases:<\/h2>\n