Subsequent action(s) None | Decided 27 March 1991 | |
Citation(s) 2 QB 92
WLR 1206
All ER 769 Cases cited Reg. v. Kemp [1957] 1 Q.B. 399, 407
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
Rabey v. The Queen [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513, 519, 520
Reg. v. Sullivan [1984] A.C. 156
Reg. v. Parks (1990) 56 C.C.C. (3d) 449 Legislation cited M'Naghten Rules (1843) 10 Cl. & Fin. 200
Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 Judge(s) sitting Lord Lane CJ, Roch and Morland Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales Similar R v Cheshire, Koowarta v Bjelke‑Petersen, R v Blaue, Commonwealth v Tasmania, Fagan v Metropolitan Police Co | ||
R v burgess ex parte henry 1936 55 clr 608
R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92 is a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that found sleepwalking as insane automatism. In a previous decision, Burgess was found not guilty by reason of insanity because his case fell under the M'Naghten Rules. Burgess appealed his previous verdict on the grounds he was not guilty due to automatism because he did not have the mens rea to make him guilty. However, the court ruled that sleepwalking was considered insane automatism and Burgess' appeal was denied.
Contents
Facts
On June 2, 1988, Mr. Barry Burgess attacked his friend Miss Katrina Curtis. She had fallen asleep on a sofa and woke up when Burgess, while allegedly sleepwalking, hit her over the head with a bottle. He subsequently picked up a video tape recorder and hit her on the head with it, giving her cuts and bruises. He put his hands around her throat, and when she said, "I love you Bar," it appeared that he came to his senses, and he called for an ambulance.
Judgement
On July 20, 1989, the Bristol Crown Court before Judge Sir Ian Lewis and a jury found Burgess not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of wounding with intent. He was ordered to be detained at a psychiatric hospital. Under section 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Burgess appealed the decision.
Appeal
The defendant brought in psychiatrist Dr. d’Orban and neuropsychiatrist Dr. Eames for medical evidence, and the prosecution called in neuropsychiatrist Dr. Fenwick. Dr. Fenwick contended that the incident was not sleepwalking, but perhaps a hysterical dissociative state.
The judge, Lord Lane said, "We accept of course that sleep is a normal condition, but the evidence in the instant case indicates that sleep walking, and particularly violence in sleep, is not normal."
It was found that the violent action was due to an internal, organic one, rather than an external cause. Thus, the appeal was subsequently denied.
Implications
The sleepwalking in this case was violent and had a possibility of recurrence, so it could be considered a form of insanity.