R v McNaughten
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1843 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 19 June 1843 |
English Reports Citation: 8 E.R. 718
House of Lords
Murder - Evidence - Insanity.
Mews' Dig. i. 349; iv. 1112. S.C. 8 Scott N.R. 595; 1 C. and K. 130; 4 St. Tr. N.S, 847. The rules laid down in this case have been accepted in the main as an authoritative statement of the law (cf. Reg. v. Townley, 1863, 3 F. and F. 839; Reg. v. Southey, 1865, 4 F. and F. 864; Reg. v. Leigh, 1866, 4 F. and F. 919). But they have been adversely criticised both by legal and medical text writers (see 2 Steph. Hist Crim. Law, 124-186; Mayne Ind. Crim. Law (ed. 1896), 368), have been rejected by many of the American States (see e.g. Parsons v. State, 1887, 81 Ala. 577), and frequently receive a liberal interpretation in England. On point as to questions to the Judges, see note to London and Westminster Bank Case, 2 Cl. and F. 191.
[200] DANIEL M'NAGHTEN'S CASE. May 26, June 19, 1843. [Mews' Dig. i. 349; iv. 1112. S.C. 8 Scott N.E. 595 ; 1 C. and K. 130; 4 St. Tr. N.S, 847. The rules laid down in this case have been accepted in the main as an authoritative statement of the law (cf. Beg. v. Townley, 1863, 3 F. and F. 839; Reg. v. Southey, 1865, 4 F. and F. 864; Reg. v. Leigh, 1866, 4 F. and F. 919). But they have been adversely criticised both by legal and medical text writers! (see 2 Steph. Hist Grim. Law, 124-186; Mayne Ind. Grim. Law (ed. 1896), 368), have been rejected by many of the American States (see e.g. Parsons v. State, 1887, 81 Ala. 577), and frequently receive a liberal interpretation in England. On point as to questions to the Judges, see note to London and Westminster Bank Case, 2 Cl. and F. 191.] Murder-Evidence-Insanity. The House of Lords has a right to require the Judges to answer abstract questions of existing law (see London and Westminster Bank Case, ante [2 Cl. and F.], p. 191 [and note thereto]. 718 m'naghten's case [1843] x clark & finnelly, 201 Notwithstanding a party accused did an act, which was in itself criminal, under the influence of insane delusion, with a view of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some public benefit, he is nevertheless punishable if he knew at the time that he was acting contrary to law. That if the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do; and if the act was at the same time contrary to la.w, he is punishable. In all cases of this kind the jurors ought to be told that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction: and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of commiting 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 as not to know that what he was doing was wrong. That a party labouring under a partial delusion must be considered in the same situation, as to responsibility, as if the facts, in respect to which the delusion exists, were real. That where an accused person is supposed to be insane, a medical man, who has been present in Court and heard the evidence, may be asked, as a matter of science, whether the facts stated by the witnesses, supposing them to be true, show a state of mind incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. The prisoner had been indicted for that he, on the 20th day of January 1843, at the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields, in the county of Middlesex, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, in and upon one Edward Drummond, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault; and that the said Daniel M'Naghten, a certain pistol of the value of 20s., loaded and [201] charged with gunpowder and a leaden bullet (which pistol he in his right hand had and held), to, against and upon the said Edward Drummond, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did shoot and discharge; and that the said Daniel M'Naghten, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, out of the pistol aforesaid, by force of the gunpowder, etc., the said Edward Drummond, in and upon the back of him the said Edward Drummond, feloniously, etc. did strike, penetrate and wound, giving to the said Edward Drummond, in and upon the back of the said Edward Drummond, one mortal wound, etc., of which mortal wound the said E. Drummond languished until the 25th of April and then died; and that by the means aforesaid, he the prisoner did kill and murder the said Edward Drummond. The prisoner pleaded Not guilty. Evidence having been given of the fact of the shooting of Mr .Drummond, and of his death in consequence thereof, witnesses were called on the part of the prisoner, to prove that he was not, at the time of committing the act, in a sound state of mind. The medical evidence was in substance this: That persons of otherwise sound mind, might be affected by morbid delusions : that the prisoner was in that condition : that a person so labouring under a morbid delusion, might have a moral perception of right and wrong, but that in the case of the prisoner it was a delusion which carried him away beyond the power of his own control, and left him no such perception; and that he was not capable of exercising any control over acts which had connexion with his delusion: that it was of the nature of the disease with which the prisoner was affected, to go on gradually until it had reached a climax, when it burst forth with irresistible [202] intensity: that a man might go on for years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marc Traylor v Kent and Medway NHS Social Care Partnership Trust
...time Marc Traylor took his daughter hostage, he was insane within the meaning of the McNaughten rules. That is (see M'Naughten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200 8 ER 718) that he “was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the a......
- R v Sullivan (Patrick Joseph)
- R v Hennessy
- Alang Mat Nasir bin Anjang Talib; PP
-
Rationalising the burden of establishing defences at criminal law in Singapore: Reconsidering Jayasena, in the wake of Eu Lim Hoklai
...the M’Naghten exception, carved out of the ‘golden thread’ for 54. See n. 14 at 475–476.55. See n. 14 at 481–482.56. M’Naghten’s case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200 per Tindal CJ.57. The ‘presumption’ of mental capacity expresses the fact that the accused bears the evidential burden on the issue of......
-
Table of cases
...79 Loyola High School v Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 ........................ 33 M’Naghten’s Case (1843), 8 ER 718, [1843–60] All ER 229 (HL) .......................247 MacDonald Estate v Martin, [1990] 3 SCR 1235, 77 DLR (4th) 249, [1990] SCJ No 41 .....................................
-
Table of cases
...1167 M’Naghten’s Case (1843), 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, [1843] 8 E.R. 718, [1843] UKHL J16 .......................................................................................... 256–57, 259, 425, 436 Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services) v. A.C., [2007] M.J. No. 26 (C.A.) ................
-
Table of cases
...London (City) v Polewsky, 2005 CanLII 38742 (Ont CA) ......................... 256, 259 M’Naghten’s Case (1843), 8 ER 718, 10 Cl & Fin 200 (HL) .............................. 335 MacMillan Bloedel Ltd v Simpson (1994), 90 BCLR (2d) 24, 113 DLR (4th) 368 ...........................................