R v Burgess

R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92 was an appeal in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that adjudged sleepwalking entailing violence from an internal, organic cause amounts to insane automatism. At first instance he was likewise found not guilty by reason of insanity as his case fell under the M'Naghten Rules. This would entail a possible stigma and a treatment plan. His defence team appealed arguing such automatism was no form of 'insanity' but fell within the class of automatism such as a spiked drink which could show a complete lack of mens rea, outwith the realms of normal mental health, to make him guilty. The court ruled that violent sleepwalking with no external triggers was considered insane automatism. Thus the appeal was heard, argued, the law and its consequences judicially considered. The appeal was dismissed.

Not to be confused with R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry.
R v Burgess
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Full case nameRegina v. Barry Douglas Burgess
Decided27 March 1991
Citation(s)
  • 2 QB 92
  • WLR 1206
  • All ER 769
  • 93 Cr App R 41
Cases citedReg. v. Kemp [1957] 1 Q.B. 399, 407

Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
Rabey v. The Queen [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513, 519, 520
Reg. v. Sullivan [1984] A.C. 156
Reg. v. Parks (1990) 56 C.C.C. (3d) 449

M'Naghten Rules (1843) 10 Cl. & Fin. 200
Legislation cited
Trial of Lunatics Act 1883
Case history
Prior action(s)Insanity found (and thus not guilty of offence) at Bristol Crown Court, before Judge Sir Ian Lewis and a jury (not reported)
Subsequent action(s)None
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingLord Lane CJ, Roch J and Morland J
Keywords
  • sleepwalking
  • parasomnia
  • violence
  • internal, organic source
  • insanity

Facts

On 2 June 1988 Burgess attacked his friend Miss Katrina Curtis. She had fallen asleep on a sofa and woke up when Burgess, while allegedly sleepwalking, hit her over the head with a bottle. He subsequently picked up a video tape recorder and hit her on the head with it, giving her cuts and bruises. He put his hands around her throat, and when she said, "I love you Bar," it appeared that he came to his senses, and he called for an ambulance.

Judgement

On 20 July 1989 the Crown Court found Burgess not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of wounding with intent. He was ordered to be detained at a psychiatric hospital. Under section 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Burgess appealed the decision.

Appeal

The defendant brought in psychiatrist Dr. d’Orban and neuropsychiatrist Dr. Eames for medical evidence. The prosecution called in neuropsychiatrist Dr. Fenwick who contended that the incident was not run-of-the-mill sleepwalking, but perhaps a hysterical dissociative state.

The judge, Lord Lane said, "We accept of course that sleep is a normal condition, but the evidence in the instant case indicates that sleep walking, and particularly violence in sleep, is not normal."

It was found that the violent action was due to an internal, organic cause, rather than an external one. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.[1]

Implications

The sleepwalking in this case was violent and had a possibility of recurrence, so it could be considered a form of insanity.[2]

References
  1. Heaton-Armstrong A (Editor), Shepherd E (Editor), Wolchover D (Editor) (2002). Analysing Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives: A Guide for Legal Practitioners and Other Professionals. Blackstone Press. ISBN 1-85431-731-8.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
  2. Russell Heaton & Claire de Than (2010). Criminal Law 3e. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923412-7. Retrieved 3 April 2012.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.