R v Windle
For the insanity defence, wrong means legally wrong, so a defendant who knows his act is against the law cannot rely on the defence.
Facts
Mr Windle's wife was mentally ill and frequently said she wanted to kill herself. He killed her by giving her 100 aspirins. When he was arrested, he said: I suppose they will hang me for this. There was medical evidence that he was suffering from a form of mental illness, but that he knew what he was doing was against the law. He was convicted of murder.
Legal principle
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction. Lord Goddard CJ said that in the M'Naghten Rules, wrong means contrary to law, not morally wrong. Mr Windle's statement showed that he knew that what he had done was against the law, so he could not rely on the defence of insanity, even if he believed his act was morally right. The decision was confirmed in R v Johnson [2007] EWCA Crim 1978, although it has been criticised.
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.
