View source for R v Keal (2022) EWCA Crim 341

{{Case
|Date=2022/03/18
|NCN=[2022] EWCA Crim 341
|ICLR=[2022] WLR(D) 129
|ICLR ID=2022001311
|Essex issue=121
|Essex page=40
|Other citations=[2022] 2 Cr App R 4, [2022] 4 WLR 41
|Court=Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
|Judges=Burnett, Thirlwall, Morris
|Parties=Jonathan Keal, R
|Cites=M'Naghten's case (1843) UKHL J16
|Sentence=M'Naghten Rules and choice
|Summary=(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. 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"). "Wrong" means both against the law and wrong by the standards of ordinary reasonable people. (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. (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. (4) The judge's direction of law in the present case was appropriate and the convictions are safe.
|Subject=Unfitness and insanity cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2022/03/19 08:46:53 PM
}}