R v M\u2019Naghten (1843) 8 E.R. 718; (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 200<\/strong><\/p>\n In January 1843, at the parish of Saint Martin, Middlesex, Daniel M\u2019Naghten took a pistol and shot Edward Drummond, who he believed to the British Prime Minister Robert Pell, wounding him fatally. Drummond died five days later and M\u2019Naghten was charged with his murder. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.<\/p>\n At trial, evidence was given of the shooting of Drummond and witnesses were called on the behalf of the defendant, M\u2019Naghten, to attest to the fact he was not in a sound state of mind at the time of committing the act. Some of the witnesses who gave this evidence, had previously examined M\u2019Naghten, whilst others had not seen him prior to the trial and, and they formed their opinion on hearing the evidence given by other witnesses.<\/p>\n The medical evidence brought forward stated that persons of otherwise sound mind, might be affected by morbid delusions and that M\u2019Naghten was so affected. A person labouring under such delusion, might usually possess a moral perception of right and wrong, but in relation to acts connected to their delusion may be carried beyond power of their own control leaving them with no such perception.<\/p>\n Accordingly M\u2019Naghten was not capable of exercising control over his acts whilst under his delusion. Due to the nature of M\u2019Naghten\u2019s condition these delusions went on gradually until they reached a climax, ending with Drummond being shot. Evidence brought before the Court about the condition from which M\u2019Naghten suffered stated that a man may go on for years quietly whilst under the delusion\u2019s influence, but had the potential break out into extravagant and violent paroxysms.<\/p>\n In relation to the charge against M\u2019Naghten, Lord Chief Justice Tindal stated that \u201cthe question to be determined is, whether at the time the act in question was committed, the prisoner had or had not the use of his understanding, so as to know that he was doing a wrong or wicked act. If the jurors should be of opinion that the prisoner was not sensible, at the time he committed it, that he was violating the laws both of God and man, then he would be entitled to a verdict in his favour: but if, on the contrary, they were of opinion that when he committed the act he was in a sound state of mind, then their verdict must be against him.\u201d<\/p>\n M\u2019Naghten was found not guilty.<\/strong><\/p>\n Following this a panel of Judges attended the House of Lords and had a series of hypothetical questions on the topic of insanity put before them.<\/p>\n The hypothetical questions about insanity the judges had to address were as follows:<\/p>\nFacts<\/h3>\n
Issues<\/h3>\n