M'Naghten Rules (1843)
Definition
The insanity-defence standard from (1843) 8 Eng Rep 718, formulated by the House of Lords in response to the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten: the accused is not responsible if, by reason of disease of the mind, they did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know it was wrong. The governing standard in England and Wales, applied in India under BNS § 22 / IPC § 84, and the baseline from which US law developed.
Related terms
- BNS § 22 / IPC § 84
- India's statutory insanity defence: nothing is an offence done by a person who, by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time...
- Durham Rule (1954)
- The insanity-defence standard from Durham v. United States (1954) 214 F.2d 862 (DC Circuit): an accused is not responsible if the unlawful...
- Fitness to Stand Trial
- The capacity to participate meaningfully in criminal proceedings: understanding the nature of the charges, following the evidence, and instructing counsel. In England...
- Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales)
- Statute governing capacity for consent to treatment and other decisions (not testamentary capacity). Requires a person to understand, retain, weigh, and communicate...
- MPC Substantial-Capacity Test
- The insanity-defence standard from the Model Penal Code (ALI, 1962) § 4.01: not responsible if, as a result of mental disease or...
- Selvi V. State of Karnataka (2010)
- Constitutional bench judgment (2010) 7 SCC 263 holding that compelled narco-analysis, polygraph testing, and brain-mapping violate Article 20(3) and Article 21 of...
- Testamentary Capacity
- The legal capacity to make a valid will. In England and Wales: the Banks v. Goodfellow (1870) test. In India: Indian Succession...
Explained in
- Forensic Psychiatry: Insanity Defence and CapacityThe insanity-defence standard from (1843) 8 Eng Rep 718, formulated by the House of Lords in response to the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten: the accused is not...