The defendant appealed against his conviction for assault. The violent act was alleged to have been done during a period of unconsciousness arising from arteriosclerosis. His counsel submitted that his client had done what he had during a period of mental confusion arising from a physical, not a mental disease.
Held: The argument failed. Devlin J said: ‘It does not matter for the purposes of law, whether the defect of reason is due to a degeneration of the brain or to some other form of mental derangement. 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.’
Devlin J
[1957] I QB 399
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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.539358