There are a variety of criminal defense strategies that a lawyer may utilize when defending a client in a criminal case. Courts will determine legal insanity. In this article, we shall study one of the strategies called The M’Naghten Rules.
Insanity is a mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to know what he or she is doing; or if he or she does know, to know that what they are doing is wrong. Insane defendants are those defendants who acted under an irresistible impulse, even if they knew their actions were wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, because criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong, a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make.
Dr. E.A. Hooton carried intensive research on insane criminals and concluded that they were inferior to civilians in nearly all their physical standards and they commit criminal acts because of their unsoundness of mind and insanity. Henry Goodard observes, “fifty percent of criminals suffered from mental deficiency and they were unable to appreciate the consequence of their behaviour or meaning of the law.” The test of mental insanity came up for judicial consideration in the historic case, M’Naghten case in 1843, which is a landmark decision on insanity as a defence in English criminal jurisprudence.
There are a variety of criminal defense strategies that a lawyer may utilize when defending a client in a criminal case. Courts will determine legal insanity by applying one of the following tests/rules:
- The M’Naghten Rule.
- The Irresistible Impulse Test
- The Durham Rule
- The Model Penal Code Test
The court has no discretion to decide which test to apply. Their decisions are governed by the laws of a particular state.
The M’Naghten Rule:
The M’Naghten Rule (or test) was established by the English House of Lords in the mid-19th Century in a famous case known as M’Naghten Case. This case was tried in London before Tindal C.J. and two other judges and defended by Mr. Cockburn who later on became the Lord Chief Justice of England. The test thus enunciated in this case is known as “The Right and Wrong Test” and is applied today in England, India, Canada and practically in all the American States
Facts of the Case:
In January 1843, at the parish of Saint Martin, Middlesex, Daniel M’Naghten took a pistol and shot Edward Drummond (Secretary of the British Prime Minister), who he believed to the British Prime Minister Robert Peel, wounding him fatally. M’Naghten believed that Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel was conspiring against him. At the time of his arrest, he told police that he came to London to murder the Prime Minister because he was told to do so. Drummond died five days later and M’Naghten was charged with his murder. During the trial, he pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Medical evidences were provided that M’Naghten was not capable of exercising control over his acts whilst under his delusion. Due to the nature of M’Naghten’s condition these delusions went on gradually until they reached a climax, ending with Drummond being shot. Defense counsel introduced expert and lay witnesses who testified about the Defendant’s obsession with delusions and that he suffered from acute insanity. The Chief Justice in his charge to the jury said that the question for them to be determined was whether at the time of committing the act he had or had not the use of his understanding so as to know that he was violating the law of God and man. The jury reached a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Questions Put to the Judges:
Following the trial, there was a meeting at the House of Lords attended by fifteen judges in order to determine the standards for the insanity defense. Fourteen of the judges united in their answers. The opinion of the majority was delivered by Tindal C.J. these questions & answers are known as the M’Naghten Rules which form the basis of the modem law on insanity in England & India. The following questions were put to the judges:
Question-1: What is law in respect of the alleged offences committed by the persons laboured with insane delusion in respect of one or more particulars subject or persons; e.g. Where at the time of the commission of the alleged crime the accused knew he was acting contrary to law, but did the act complained of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some supposed public benefit?
Answers: Assuming that your Lordship’s inquiries are confined to those persons who labour under such partial delusion only and are not in other respects insane we are of the opinion that notwithstanding the accused did the act complained with a view, under the influence of insane delusion of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing’ some public benefit, he nevertheless punishable according to the nature of the crime committed, if he knew at the time of committing such crime that he was acting contrary to law, by which expression we understand your lordship to mean the law of the land.
Questions 2 and 3: What are the proper questions to be submitted to the jury where a person alleged to be afflicted with insane delusion respecting one or more particular subjects or persons is charged with the commission of a crime, eg. murder and insanity is set-up as a defence? In what terms are the questions to be left to the jury as to the Prisoner’s state of mind, at the time when the act was committed?
Answer: As these two questions appear to us to be more conveniently answered together, we submit our opinion to be that the jury ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be 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 committing the act, the 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. The mode of the latter part of the question to the jury on these occasions has generally been, whether the accused at the time of doing the act know the difference between right and wrong, which made though rarely if ever leading to any mistake with the jury, is not, as we conscience so accurate when put generally and in the abstract, as when put with reference to the party’s knowledge of right and wrong in respect to every act which he is charged. If the question were to be put as to the knowledge of the accused solely and exclusively with reference to the law of the land, it might tend to confound the jury by inducing then to believe that actual knowledge of the law of the land was essential in order to lead to a conviction; whereas the law is administered upon the principle that everyone must be taken conclusively to know it, without proof of that he does know it, without proof of that he does know it. If the accused was conscious that the act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable and unusual course, therefore, has been to leave the question to the jury, whether the party accused had a sufficient degree of reason to know that he was doing an act that was wrong and this course we think is correct accompanied with such observation and explanations as the circumstances of each particular case may require.
Question 4: If a person under an insane delusion as to existing facts commits an offence in consequence thereof, is thereby excused?
Answer: The answer must depend on the nature of the delusion, but making the same assumption as we did before, namely that he labours under such partial delusions only and is not in other respects insane we think he must be considered in the same situation as to the responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real. For instance, if under the influence of his delusion he supposes another man to be in the act of attempting to take away his life, and he kills, that man as he supposes, in self-defence, he would be exempted from punishment. If his delusion was that the deceased had inflicted a serious injury to his character and fortune and he killed him in revenge for such supposed injury, he would be liable to punishment.
Question-5: Can a medical man, Conversant with the disease of insanity who never saw the prisoner previously to the trial, but who was present during the whole trial and the examination of all the witnesses, be asked his opinion as to the state of the prisoner’s mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, or his opinion whether the prisoner was conscious at the time of doing the act that he was acting contrary to law, or whether he was labouring under any, and what delusion at the time?
Answer: The medical man, under the circumstances supposed, cannot in strictness be called or asked his opinion in the terms of above stated, because each of those questions involve the ascertainment of the truth of the facts deposed to, which it is for the jury to decide and the questions are not mere questions upon a matter of science, in which such evidence is admissible. But where facts are admitted or not disputed and the question becomes substantially one of the science only, it may be convenient to allow the question to be put in that general form, though the same cannot be insisted on as a matter of right.
After careful consideration their lordship found M’Naghten not guilty on the ground of his mental insanity. Their lordship observed that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be held responsible for his crime until the contrary is proved. In order to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the accused was laboring under such a degree 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 he was doing what was wrong.
The answers given by the judges in M’Naghten case may be summarized in the following five rules:-
- 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 the satisfaction of the court
- In order to establish defence on ground of insanity it must be clearly shown that at the time of committing the act, the 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 that what he was doing was wrong.
- If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do and if that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.
- Whereas criminal act is done by a man under some insane delusion as to the surrounding facts, which conceals him from the true nature of the act he is doing, he will be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as imagined them to be
- A medical witness who has not seen the accused before trial should not be asked on the evidence whether he thinks that the accused was insane.
Examples of Insanity Using the M’Naghten Rule
The best way to get a better understanding of this type of legal insanity is to see a few examples of how the rule may be applied to certain scenarios.
Example 1: A man murdered his wife and daughter, and then waited calmly for the police to arrive. Three mental health experts testified that he was too psychologically ill to understand that his criminal acts were wrong. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to 10 years in a mental health facility.
Example 2: A woman with severe schizophrenia is charged with assault and battery after attacking her next-door neighbor with a shovel. She claims the neighbor was actually a demon who was trying to harvest her soul. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity after the court determined that she failed to understand the nature of her actions.
Position of “Insanity” in India:
Section 84 of the Indian Penal code explains the act of a person of unsound mind. Section 84 contains the provision which relieves the accused person from criminal liability on the ground of unsoundness of mind. Section 84 in substance is similar to the M’Naghten rules because there is very little distinction between section 84 and answers 2 and 3 of the M’Naghten rules.
Section 84 provides as under: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing, what is either wrong or contrary to law”.
The accused is not protected if he knows at the time of doing an act that what he was doing was wrong even though he did not know that it was contrary to law. Sec 84 of Indian Penal Code contains a basic principle of the criminal jurisprudence that is “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means that the act itself does not make a person guilty unless and until the intention was so. Therefore, in order to constitute an offence, the act must be accompanied by the intention to commit that act so the section imposes no criminal liability upon an insane person as they can possess no rational thinking or necessary ill will or the mens rea.
There is a minor distinction in Section 84 and answers 2 and 3 of the M’Naghten rule. The M’Naghten rules provide the terms “nature and quality” of the act whereas Section 84 does not provide the terms “Quality”. Likewise, the term “Contrary to Law” used in Section-84 is not present in the M’Naghten rules.
In RV Codere, 1916,12 Cr. App.R.21 case, the court of criminal appeal held that there is no distinction between the two terms “nature and quality” as both refer to the physical character of the act. A similar view was adopted by the Indian Supreme Court in Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. U.O.I. AIR 1977 SC 608 case. One more difference has also been found to exist between M’Naghten rules and Section 84 of Indian Penal code. That is in M’Naghten Rules Word ‘Insanity’ of the accused is defined and explained. According to Stephen, it is equivalent to unsoundness of mind, which is explained in Section 84 of Indian Penal code.
In order to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 84 three elements are considered necessary or any one of which must be established by the accused, because of unsoundness of mind, was,
- Incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
- The act was contrary to law.
- That the act was wrong.
So in order to establish insanity or unsoundness of mind, it is necessary to prove that the cognitive faculties of the person are such that he does not know that what he has done or what would be the consequences of his act.
M’Naghten rules refer to “disease of the mind” while the Indian Penal code in its Section-84 uses the expression “unsoundness of mind.” This appears to cover not only any form of insanity or mental disease but also any form of deficiency, like idiocy, imbecility and even feeble-mindedness. Instead of the word “insanity”, the framers of the Indian Penal Code have preferred the term “unsoundness of mind” because ‘insanity’ has a very confined scope whereas “unsoundness of mind” is a more comprehensive term. Any kind of mental derangement, caused by any reason whatever maybe, is unsoundness of mind but the same may not be insanity always. The framers of the Indian Penal Code wished to give a very wide scope to the unstable mind while recognizing the non-compos mends, i.e. not of sound mind notion as a defence under the Indian Criminal law.
In Pancha V. Emperor, AIR 1932 All, 233 case, the Allahabad High Court held that section 84 of the Indian Penal Code has borrowed the definition of unsoundness of mind which is recognized as a good excuse from the M’Naghten rules.
In State V. Kartik Chandra, AIR 1951 Ass. 79 case, the Assam High Court held that this enunciation of the law of England is the basis of Section 84 of the IPC and is embodied in it and section 84 of Indian Penal Code has borrowed the definition of unsoundness of mind which is recognized as a good excuse from the M’Naghten rules.
In State V. Chhote Lal, AIR 1959 M.P. 203, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Principle underlying the Section 84 is substantially similar to the landmark M’Naghten rules and consequently, considerable assistance in understanding its content can be from the English decisions.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998 case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was at the crucial point of time when the offence was committed was of such a degree as described in section 84 of the IPC lay on the person who claimed the benefit of this exception. The plea of insanity under an epileptic fit may succeed, only if it is established that at the very time when the offence was committed, the accused was under the epileptic seizure which rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
In Dhayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563, case, the Court held that the crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of section 84 IPC, can only be established from the circumstances which preceded attended and followed the crime.
In Jai Lai v Delhi Administration, AIR 1969 SC 15, case the Court observed that the general burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the actus rea but also the mens rea.
In State of Gujarat v Kanaiyalal Manilal, 1997 Cri. L.J. 4245 case, the court has said that Sections 20, 22 and 78 of Mental Health Act, 1987 state that person who is mentally ill shall be sent to the psychiatric hospital. The court shall pass the order of reception and cost of maintenance of such person which is to be borne by the State Government.
Recommendation of 42nd Report of Law Commission in India
- Should the existing provision (Section 84) relating to the defence of insanity be modified or expanded in any other way?
- Should the test be related to the offender’s incapacity to know that the act is wrong or to his incapacity to know that it is punishable?
- Should the defence of insanity be available in cases where the offender, although aware of wrongful, or even criminal nature of his act, is unable to resist from doing because of his mental condition?
Conclusion:
The study of the above cases reveals that the courts are sympathetic to the person with mental illness and have generally favoured acquittal on finding of insanity. The court have also highlighted that the detention of insane into psychiatric hospital helps in reformation and rehabilitation of the person suffer from insanity. Therefore the court takes into account the legal insanity and the court has also pointed out that legal insanity is different from medical insanity. To get the benefit of acquittal from criminal responsibility it is necessary for the accused to prove the three essentials as the burden of proof rests upon him. Thus persons should be taken into safe custody under hygiene condition so that he regain to society.