Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-9kljr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T13:24:29.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criminal intent and psychiatric evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2024

Nicholas Hallett Open the ORCID record for Nicholas Hallett [Opens in a new window] ,
Akinkunmi Odutola ,
Tony Storey  and
Natalie Wortley
Nicholas Hallett*
Affiliation:
Consultant forensic psychiatrist and training programme director with Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, based at Brockfield House, Wickford, UK. He has a BSc in Bioethics from the University of Bristol, UK, an LLM (Distinction) in Mental Health Law from the University of Northumbria, UK and an MA (Distinction) in Philosophy and Mental Health from the University of Central Lancashire, UK.
Akinkunmi Odutola
Affiliation:
Specialist registrar in forensic psychiatry with Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, based at Brockfield House, Wickford, UK. He currently works on a female medium secure unit. His interests include adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medical education.
Tony Storey
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School, Northumbria University, UK. He has an LLB from the University of Leicester, UK and an LLM in comparative criminal law from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Natalie Wortley
Affiliation:
Barrister (non-practising), Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ courts) and a First-tier Tribunal Judge (Mental Health), Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Formerly Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria University, UK, she is a contributing editor of Archbold Magistrates’ Courts Criminal Practice, and a member of the Criminal Law Week and Criminal Law Review commentary teams. She lectures evidence to judges for the Judicial College, UK and co-authors the monthly crime e-letter distributed to all criminal judges in England and Wales.
*
Correspondence Nicholas Hallett. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Although forensic psychiatrists are often asked to comment on a defendant's capacity to form the necessary mens rea for their alleged offence, little has been written on how mental disorders map onto legal concepts of mens rea, particularly those of intention. In this article we explore legal concepts of mens rea and the relevance of mental disorders and alcohol intoxication. We briefly consider philosophical approaches to intentional action and a variety of common mental disorders. We conclude that despite the presence of significant psychopathology it is rare for mental disorders to cause a defendant to lack the ability to form mens rea. Experts should therefore be cautious about coming to the conclusion that they do lead to a lack of capacity to form mens rea and should make clear the limits of their expertise, given the difficulty of translating clinical mental states into legal concepts of liability.

Keywords

Forensic psychiatristspsychiatric evidencecriminal Intentcapacity to form mens reamental disorders
Type
Article
Information
BJPsych Advances , Volume 30 , Special Issue 6: Expert Psychiatric Evidence - including topics from the Grange Medicolegal Conference , November 2024 , pp. 357 - 367
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

Broome, MR (2012) The Maudsley Reader in Phenomenological Psychiatry. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D (2001) Essays on Actions and Events: Philosophical Essays Volume 1. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judicial College (2023) Crown Court Compendium Part I: Jury and Trial Management and Summing Up. Judicial College.Google Scholar
Law Commission (2013) Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism, A Discussion Paper. The Law Commission.Google Scholar
Leckman, JF, King, RA, Bloch, MH (2014) Clinical features of Tourette syndrome and tic disorders. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 3: 372–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libet, B (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8: 529–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliffe, M (2014) Experiences of Depression: A Study in Phenomenology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rix, K, Clarkson, A (1994) Depersonalization and intent. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 5: 409–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L, Anscombe, GEM (1953) Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386, HL.Google Scholar
DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443, HL.Google Scholar
M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200, HL.Google Scholar
Elliott v C [1983] 1 WLR 939.Google Scholar
Loake v DPP [2017] EWHC 2855; [2018] QB 998.Google Scholar
Pora v R [2015] UKPC 9; [2016] 1 Cr App R 3.Google Scholar
R v B (MA) [2013] EWCA Crim 3; [2013] 1 Cr App R 36.Google Scholar
R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385.Google Scholar
R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341, HL.Google Scholar
R v Casserly [2024] EWCA Crim 25.Google Scholar
R v Chard (1972) 56 Cr App R 268, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R v Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219.Google Scholar
R v Cooper [2004] EWCA Crim 1382.Google Scholar
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396, CCA.Google Scholar
R v G [2003] UKHL 50; [2003] 3 WLR 1060.Google Scholar
R v Grewal [2010] EWCA Crim 2448.Google Scholar
R v Groark [1999] EWCA Crim 207.Google Scholar
R v Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125; [2007] 1 Cr App R 37.Google Scholar
R v Jacobs [2023] EWCA Crim 1503; [2024] 4 WLR 8.Google Scholar
R v Keal [2022] EWCA Crim 341.Google Scholar
R v Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355, HL.Google Scholar
R v Matthews & Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192; [2003] 21 Cr App R 30.Google Scholar
R v McKinnon [1989] OJ 609; (1989) 33 OAC 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R v Moloney [1984] UKHL 4; [1985] AC 905.Google Scholar
R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025, CA.Google Scholar
R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392, CA.Google Scholar
R v Quick [1973] QB 910, CA.Google Scholar
R v Sheehan [1975] 1 WLR 739, CA.Google Scholar
R v Walle [2012] SCC 41; [2012] 2 SCR 4387.Google Scholar
R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.Google Scholar
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.Google Scholar
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386, HL.Google Scholar
DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443, HL.Google Scholar
M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200, HL.Google Scholar
Elliott v C [1983] 1 WLR 939.Google Scholar
Loake v DPP [2017] EWHC 2855; [2018] QB 998.Google Scholar
Pora v R [2015] UKPC 9; [2016] 1 Cr App R 3.Google Scholar
R v B (MA) [2013] EWCA Crim 3; [2013] 1 Cr App R 36.Google Scholar
R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385.Google Scholar
R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341, HL.Google Scholar
R v Casserly [2024] EWCA Crim 25.Google Scholar
R v Chard (1972) 56 Cr App R 268, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R v Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219.Google Scholar
R v Cooper [2004] EWCA Crim 1382.Google Scholar
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396, CCA.Google Scholar
R v G [2003] UKHL 50; [2003] 3 WLR 1060.Google Scholar
R v Grewal [2010] EWCA Crim 2448.Google Scholar
R v Groark [1999] EWCA Crim 207.Google Scholar
R v Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125; [2007] 1 Cr App R 37.Google Scholar
R v Jacobs [2023] EWCA Crim 1503; [2024] 4 WLR 8.Google Scholar
R v Keal [2022] EWCA Crim 341.Google Scholar
R v Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355, HL.Google Scholar
R v Matthews & Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192; [2003] 21 Cr App R 30.Google Scholar
R v McKinnon [1989] OJ 609; (1989) 33 OAC 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R v Moloney [1984] UKHL 4; [1985] AC 905.Google Scholar
R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025, CA.Google Scholar
R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392, CA.Google Scholar
R v Quick [1973] QB 910, CA.Google Scholar
R v Sheehan [1975] 1 WLR 739, CA.Google Scholar
R v Walle [2012] SCC 41; [2012] 2 SCR 4387.Google Scholar
R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.Google Scholar
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.