yeah i know i know
but hopefully the question wont be as difficult and tbh over the next few days im gone revise involuntary manslaughter so i know that in case the scenario is a bit messed up. I more or less know everything on non fatals murder, the partial defences and general defences.
For the evaluation i know non fatals of by heart and i know insanity of by heart too so i just need to do consent but im not sure if this is the best one to do so i might consider automatism.
Just a little hint it will always be guilty of murder because otherwise you cant talk about the defences right? so there not gone be stupid and bring a scenario where the accused is not guilty of murder. This is what my teacher told me.
Well that would depend on the scenario if it is clear that there is no mention of it then no cuz we will get no marks for it. So for example if there is nothing of some sort of mental illness or suffering from depression or a recognised medical condition then no we dont mention diminished responsibility or insanity. however there will most likely be like 2 defences so if there is no diminished responsibility there could be intoxication consent automatism etc...
Basically the courts go with the M'Naghten Rule in order to determine if someone is insane or not. In your answer you need to mention the rule which is that the courts deem someone to be insane if he suffers from a "defect of reason which was the result of a disease of the mind causing the D not to know the nature and quality of his act that what he was doing was wrong". then you apply all elements to the scenario and conclude whether he would be insane or not if it is not clear just say that it is not clear from the scenario whether he would or not be.
Hope that is helpful if not tell me.