It follows that we answer 'Yes' to the question posed in the stated case: 'Is the defence of insanity available for a defendant charged with an offence of harassment, contrary to Section 2(1) PFHA?'. The real issue is the question whether the defence of insanity is available on a charge of harassment contrary to Section 2(1) of the PFHA given the terms of Section 1(1)(b). * Insanity Loake v CPS EWHC 2855 (Admin) - "For the purposes of this appeal we shall assume that the Appellant pursued a course of conduct which objectively amounted to harassment. The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but held that it had not been shown on the balance of probabilities that she was not fit to plead at the relevant time. She argued that fresh psychiatric evidence showed she had been unfit to plead at the time of the confiscation hearing so the matter should be reconsidered, and without the s10 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 assumptions (assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle). * Fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings Ihenacho v London Borough of Croydon EWCA Crim 798 - The appellant had dishonestly made welfare benefits claims, was deemed to have benefitted in the sum of £590,316.08, and a confiscation order equalling her realisable assets of £283,214.90 was made. (4) The judge's direction of law in the present case was appropriate and the convictions are safe. (3) The current law on insanity cannot be interpreted as involving an element of "choice", as significant changes to an aspect of our criminal law that has remained undisturbed for so long, laden with policy choices as they would be, are more properly for Parliament. (2) Under the M'Naghten Rules, the defence of insanity is not available to a defendant who, although he knew what he was doing was wrong, believed that he had no choice but to commit the act in question. "Wrong" means both against the law and wrong by the standards of ordinary reasonable people. contrary to law) and (b) he did not know that his act was "morally" wrong (also expressed as wrong "by the standards of ordinary people"). * M'Naghten Rules and choice R v Keal EWCA Crim 341 - (1) In order to establish the defence of insanity within the M'Naghten Rules on the ground of not knowing the act was "wrong", the defendant must establish both that (a) he did not know that his act was unlawful (i.e. The argument that his claim should be struck out on the grounds of illegality was unsuccessful: "The law would not be condoning wrongdoing because the jury's verdict means there was none." * Ex turpi causa Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd EWHC 1213 (QB) - The claimant killed three men, was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, then sought damages from G4S, the police, the NHS trust and the county council. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |