Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DISCUSS THE DEF-WPS Office
DISCUSS THE DEF-WPS Office
BY
FACULTY OF LAW
EKPOMA-NIGERIA
1
Discuss the defences of the offense of insanity as embedded in the case of Daniel
M'Naghten v. Robert Peel
Abstract
This current study is an authentic legal literary work analysing insanity and the
defences recognized to be effective in cases of insanity.
Keywords: Insanity, defences, Penal Code, Criminal Code.
1.1 Introduction
When insanity is mentioned, the first thing which comes to mind is that it is a
state of madness. A state in which a person is delusional, hallucinates or exhibits
an unusual behavior which before the normal person is abnormal
This is simply said that a person is considered to be sane and normal until it is
proven to be otherwise. Section 28(i) further provides that;
"A person is not criminally responsible for an action or
omission if at the time of doing the act or making the
omission he is in such a state of mental disease
1
2
1
Criminal Code s.27 & 28(i & ii)
or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of capacity
to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control
his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to
do the act or make the omission.....
3
From the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Penal Code, it can be duly
affirmed that for a defence of insanity to ensue in regards to such a case as it may
2
Criminal Code, Penal Code
arise, the offender is assumed to have been in a delusional state or a state of
unsoundness of mind as at the time of the crime.
This is simply to say that the defendant, M’Naghten was charged with the murder
of Edward Drummond, secretary to the Prime Minister and used the insanity
defense at trial. At the time of his arrest, he told the police that he came to
London to murder the Prime Minister because he was told to do so. The jury
reached a verdict of not guilty and a meeting at the House of Lords ensued in
order to determine what the standards for the insanity defense would be.
3
4
2.2 The defences of insanity
From the above discussions and findings, this leads to further research as to what
is referred to as necessary for the defence of insanity. In the case, the conclusion
3
Daniel M'Naghten v. Robert Peel (1848) 10 C.L. 200
was reached that should a crime have been committed due to a stroke of insanity,
the following were the defences:
1. That everyone is presumed sane until the contrary is
proved.
2. That it is a defence for the accused to show that he
was labouring under such a defect of reason, due to to
the disease of the mind as either:
(A) Not to know the nature and quality of his act or
(B) If he did know this, he did not know that he was
doing wrong.
3. That if a man commits a criminal act under insane
delusion, he is under the same degree of responsibility
as he would have been on the facts as he imagined
them to be.
A simple translation of the above defences or a synopsis of the rule of law is that
in order to establish an insanity defense, it must be clearly proven that at the time
of the act, the accused was under such a defect of reason from disease of the
mind that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was committing or
if he did know, he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
5
4
4
Daniel M'Naghten v. Robert Peel (1848) 10 C.L. 200
This is one of the the defences which arose in the case of Daniel M'Naghten
v Robert Peel. Though not discussed previously, but looking into the details of the
case, Daniel M'Naghten was presumed to be sane when he first appeared in the
presence of the court before it was later proved that he was insane.
This alone insinuates the stand that for every offender who claims to not be
of sound mind at the time of the crime should prove that he was indeed not of
sound mind at that time because the court will presume him sane until proven
otherwise.
2.That he was indeed labouring under such a defect of reason, due to to the
disease of the mind as either:
(A) Not to know the nature and quality of his act or
(B) If he did know this, he did not know that he was doing wrong.
This is another defence on Insanity which was also established in the Daniel
M'Naghten v. Robert Peel case. This defence sought to establish and did infact
establish that the offender was indeed labouring under such defect of reason and
that at the time of the crime, he did not know the nature or quality of his act. This
is to say that when committing the crime, he did not know the gravity of the crime
he committed and if he did know, he did not know whether or not what he did or
was doing was wrong
6
5
6
Daniel M'Naghten v. Robert Peel (1848) 10 C.L. 200
Queen, Victoria., M'Naghten Rules. Retrieved from https://en.m.wekipedia.org>wiki.(2024). Accessed 23 January, 2024
have been present at the time the crime was committed for the defence to be a
possibility. The second and third elements are statements about the
consequences that must flow from this state of mind to qualify the person for the
defence .
The defenses in relation to the case of Daniel M'Naghten v. Robert Peel has truly
broadened our horizons and knowledgeability though there are quite a number of
cases in relation to this area. However, we shall only extend our views to this
extent.
8
7
Conclusion
This study has thoroughly assessed with in-depth focus, the defenses for the
insane committing crimes through the provisions of the respective Acts and the
M'Naghten case.
From the previous assessments and discussions, it is finally submitted that for an
offender to apply the rules of the defenses of insanity, it must actually be proven
that at the time of the crime, the offender was indeed not of sound mind.
7
Shea, P (1999) Defining Madness, Hawkins Press, Sydney.
Shea, P ( 1996) Psychiatry in Court, Hawkins Press, Sydney.
Asokan, T.V, Daniel M'Naughton (1813-1865) PMC_NCBI. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>pmc (2007).
9
REFERENCES
¹The Criminal Code
²The Penal Code
³Daniel M'Naghten v. Robert Peel (1848) 10 C.L. 200
⁶Queen, Victoria., M'Naghten Rules. Retrieved from
https://en.m.wekipedia.org>wiki.(2024). Accessed 23 January, 2024
⁷Shea, P (1999) Defining Madness, Hawkins Press, Sydney.
⁷Shea, P ( 1996) Psychiatry in Court, Hawkins Press, Sydney.
⁷Asokan, T.V, Daniel M'Naughton (1813-1865) PMC_NCBI. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>pmc (2007).
10