R v Sullivan
Epilepsy is a disease of the mind for the insanity defence, however unfair that label seems.
Facts
Mr Sullivan, a man of blameless character, was sitting with a friend when he suffered a minor epileptic seizure and kicked the friend in the head, causing him injuries. He had no recollection of the attack. At his trial for assault, the judge ruled that his defence of automatism amounted to a plea of insanity, so Mr Sullivan changed his plea to guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, rather than risk being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the judge's ruling. Lord Diplock said that if the effect of a disease is to impair the faculties of reason, memory and understanding so severely as to have either of the consequences referred to in the M'Naghten Rules, it matters not whether the aetiology of the impairment is organic, as in epilepsy, or functional, or whether the impairment itself is permanent or is transient and intermittent, provided that it subsisted at the time of the act. Epilepsy was therefore a disease of the mind, even though it would be offensive to describe someone with epilepsy as insane in the ordinary sense.
Related cases on defences: insanity, automatism and intoxication
- Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
- DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443
- Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
- M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200
- R v Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760
- R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92
- R v Coley; R v McGhee; R v Harris [2013] EWCA Crim 223
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
