Johnson, R. v

For the insanity defence under the M'Naghten Rules, a defendant who knew that the act was contrary to law knew that it was “wrong”. A belief that the act was morally justified does not establish the defence. The Court of Appeal was bound to apply that settled construction, notwithstanding debate about the adequacy and historical basis of the Rules.

The appellant, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and acted under delusions, stabbed a neighbour. Two psychiatrists agreed that he knew the nature and quality of his acts and knew they were against the law. One psychiatrist considered that he did not regard the acts as morally wrong.

At a preliminary hearing, the Recorder ruled that there was no evidential basis for a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury convicted the appellant of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and acquitted him of aggravated burglary. He was made subject to a hospital order without limit of time under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The appeal raised whether “wrong” in the M'Naghten Rules includes moral wrongness where the defendant knew the act was unlawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was right to withhold the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity from the jury.

2. The relevant limb of the M'Naghten Rules applies where, because of a defect of reason caused by disease of the mind, the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act or, knowing it, did not know that it was wrong. The Court held that, under the binding construction in R v Windle [1952] 2QB 826, “wrong” means contrary to law.

3. Accordingly, evidence that a defendant regarded the act as morally justified cannot found the defence where the defendant knew it was unlawful. The psychiatric evidence was agreed that the appellant had that knowledge. His delusions and any belief in moral justification therefore could not entitle him to the special verdict.

4. The court recognised substantial debate about the M'Naghten Rules and the persuasive Australian reasoning in R v Stapleton (1952) 86 CLR 358. It held, however, that reconsideration of the Rules was not open to the Court of Appeal in this case. The Vice President invited counsel to formulate a possible question of public importance for the House of Lords within 14 days, without indicating that leave would be granted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the conviction appeal in [2007] EWCA Crim 1978.

• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: convicted the appellant of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm on 13 December 2006. On 16 February 2007, made a hospital order without limit of time under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.