Royal Court (Jersey)
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830206600206 |
| Subject Matter | Royal Court (Jersey) |
Royal
Court (Jersey)
M'Naghten
Rules
May
Violate
the
Right
to Liberty
and
Security
of
the
Person
Attorney-General
v
Prior
(9 February
2001,24
July 2001)
The defendant,
who
had
been
drinking
and
had
taken
both
cannabis
and
heroin, deliberately
ran
down
the
victim in a stolen car, fracturing
his skull
and
causing
permanent
psychiatric as well as physical injury.
The defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic
who
originally pleaded
not
guilty by reason of insanity
to
the
charge of grave
and
criminal assault
(he later changed to a guilty plea). Two preliminary questions
were
raised before trial. First,
the
defence counsel made
an
application for
evidence
to
be
heard
from Professors R. D. Mackay
and
C. A. Gearty as
to
whether
the
M'Naghten Rules are
open
to challenge
under
the
Human
Rights Act 1998
and
how
they
should be altered to rid
them
of
any
incompatibility. This was refused. Secondly, the court
had
to
consider
the
meaning
and
definition of insanity
under
the
Criminal Justice
(Insane Persons) (Jersey) Law 1964,
and
hence
whether
the
accused
was insane at
the
time of
the
offence. No definition of insanity
under
that
law
had
so far
been
elaborated by
the
Jersey Royal Court. Counsel
for
the
accused contended
that
the
word 'insane' should be construed in
accordance with
the
European
Convention
on
Human
Rights, since
Jersey
had
recently passed
the
Human
Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 incor-
porating
the
European
Convention, although
the
Law was
not
yet in
force,
and
in a
manner
which reflected
the
current
state of medical
knowledge relating to mental
health
problems. The M'Naghten Rules
were
not
part of
the
law of Jersey
and
should
not
be imported as a quick
fix for
the
lack of
any
local jurisprudence as to the definition of
the
insanity defence. The Attorney-General argued
that
the
English law on
insanity should be followed,
and
hence
the
M'Naghten Rules should be
applied, subject to
any
necessary adaptation to
ensure
human
rights
compliance.
Article 2(1) of
the
Criminal Justice (Insane Persons)(Jersey) Law
1964 provides that:
If
on the trial before the Royal Court of any person charged with any act or
omission punishable with death or imprisonment, the jury is satisfied that
the accused did the act or made the omission charged against him but that
he was insane at the time when the act was done or omission made so as
not to be responsible according to law for his actions, the jury shall return
a special verdict to the effect that he did the act or made the omission
charged but is not guilty on the ground that he was insane so as not to be
responsible according to law at the time.
Article 5 of
the
European
Convention on
Human
Rights provides:
149
To continue reading
Request your trial