The defendant father struck his 10 year old son on the head with a mallet , and was charged with three (3) offences of Grievous Harm , two (2) of which required specific intentions to be proved.
Held: The court proceeded on the assumption that diseases such as epilepsy or cerebral tumour are not diseases of the mind, even when they are such as to manifest themselves in violence.
Barry J in summing-up the case to the jury which returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict on all charges said: ‘These are charges of criminal offences …. In order to commit them , the prisoner must have had a guilty mind. For example , an act which otherwise might be an assault would not be assault if it were done accidentally. In a public street one might suddenly put one’s hand up to stop one’s hat being blown off , and might hit a passer-by on the nose without one’s knowing he was there….. If it is purely accidental , no assault is committed , for the element of consciousness is not present. Similarly , in the case of certain diseases , a person suffering from disease may be deprived of the control of his actions. A man in the throes of an epileptic fit does not know what he is doing….’
Barry J
[1955] 1 WLR 317, (1955) 39 Cr App R 37, [1955] 1 All ER 859
England and Wales
Cited by:
Disapproved – Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland HL 3-Oct-1961
The Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland certified that their decision involved two points of law of general public importance, namely whether, the defendant’s plea of insanity having been rejected by the jury, it was open to the accused to . .
Mentioned – Regina v Quick CACD 18-Apr-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assault. He had pleaded guilty after a ruling by the judge as to the meaning of the phrase ‘a defect of reason, from disease of the mind’ within the meaning of the M’Naughten Rules. More particularly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.539359