Criminal Law

...

That may be a matter of importance medically, but it is of no importance to the law, which merely has to consider the state of mind in which the accused is, not how he got there.

...mind in the M’Naghten Rules is used in the ordinary sense of the mental faculties of reason, [

memory and understanding…

D was unaware of his actions during a 'blackout' caused by a disease of the body that affected the mind.

In conclusion, it is clearly seen that how the legal principles have been established, how they are used, and when they are used, for criminal cases. Although it has been over several years, the M’Naghten case has been cited many times when it comes to mental health law. The M’Naghten Rules is what we have been using to define insanity and still are.

-

As your lawyer, Mr. Marcus I am here to advise you on whether you are criminally liable for the actions that you had done. Firstly, I’d like to explain what is criminal liability; criminal liability consists of two elements which are crucial in determining whether a person is liable for committing the crime and they are the Mens rea (guilty mind) and the Actus reus (guilty act).

The mens rea is referred as the accused state of mind which includes the intention, recklessness, negligence, gross negligence, inter alia and the actus reus is referred to as the act that has been committed by the accused and includes the act, omissions, consequences, and surrounding circumstances. Smith and Hogan in their work Criminal Law had spoken on criminal liability whereas, the principle of the criminal law is that a person may not be convicted of a crime unless it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt the he has committed the crime (guilty act) which is forbidden by the criminal law and had a defined state of mind in relation to the causing of the crime.

Now Mr. Marcus, to talk about whether you are liable for the crime that you had committed, it can clearly be seen you had the actus reus which would be the act of destroying the opposing team’s clubhouse; on the other hand, it may seem as though you didn’t have the mens reads, however, in the case of R v Clarke, Mrs. Clarke, a 58-year-old woman, absent-mindedly placed a jar of mincemeat, a jar of coffee and some butter into her bag whilst shopping in a supermarket. She had no recollection of placing the items in her bag. Medical evidence was given at her trial which stated that she was suffering from depression and was diabetic. The trial judge ruled that this raised the defense of insanity. At this point, Mrs. Clarke changed her plea to guilty and then appealed against the judge's finding of insanity, however it was held that Short periods of absent-mindedness fell far short of amounting to a defect of reason. Marcus with evidence that was given from R v Clarke it can be clearly proven that even though you had ‘lost it’, that you cannot rely on any defect of reason, then conversely, I’m saying that your reasoning was intact therefore you were capable of forming the requisite mens rea and any reasonable person would infer that such mens rea was present in the circumstances.