The House of Lords asked a panel of judges, presided over by Sir Nicolas Conyngham Tindal, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, a series of hypothetical questions about the defence of insanity.
•
They lack the feature of novelty or accident, which is the basis of the distinction drawn by Lord Diplock in R v Sullivan 1984 AC 156, 172.
•
::(c) Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, imported into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998, provides that a person of unsound mind may be detained only where proper account of objective medical expertise has been taken.
Australian rules football | Road Rules | 8 Simple Rules | My Kitchen Rules | Interstate matches in Australian rules football | United States House Committee on Rules | The Cider House Rules | Peter Moore (Australian rules footballer) | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | rules | Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat | Instrument flight rules | Australian Rules Football | Waco: The Rules of Engagement | The Rules of the Game | The Cider House Rules (film) | Racing Rules of Sailing | Laws of Australian rules football | Ireland international rules football team | International Rules Series | Great Britain national Australian rules football team | Visual Flight Rules | South Africa national Australian rules football team | Shredderman Rules | Rules for Radicals | Road Rules: South Pacific | Road Rules: Latin America | M'Naghten Rules | Instrument Flight Rules | Business rules engine |
The M'Naghten Rules developed by the House of Lords after his trial were to establish the basis for the insanity defence in all common law countries.
The defence at his trial was that he was insane, which was undoubtedly true, but Sir Richard Muir for the prosecution argued that under the M'Naghten Rules he "knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong" and that he was therefore legally responsible.