header-logo header-logo

15 July 2022
Issue: 7987 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: The limits of the insanity defence

87740
Not guilty by reason of insanity is one of the oldest principles of criminal law. In the 2022 case of R v Keal, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) revisited the M’Naghten rules, which stem from 1843

David Walbank QC, of Red Lion Chambers, looks at the specifics of Keal, in which the defendant ‘was aware that his act was wrong but believed himself to be compelled to perform it’.

The case concerned the limits of the defence of insanity, and its limited scope in view of the persistent legal division between issues of knowledge and agency.

Issue: 7987 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll