R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156 (HL)

Facts

  • Mr. Sullivan suffered from epilepsy.
  • During a postictal state after a seizure, he attacked his neighbor, causing serious injury.
  • The incident occurred when Sullivan was confused and acting involuntarily due to his condition.
  • The trial judge directed the jury that epilepsy could form the basis for an insanity defence.
  • Mr. Sullivan was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
  • The prosecution appealed, challenging the trial judge’s directions to the jury.

Issues

  1. Whether epilepsy, as an internal medical condition, amounts to a "disease of the mind" under the legal definition for the insanity defence.
  2. Whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on applying the insanity defence to a case involving epilepsy.
  3. How to distinguish between internal and external causes when applying the M'Naghten Rules.

Decision

  • The House of Lords upheld the trial judge’s directions and Sullivan’s acquittal by reason of insanity.
  • It was held that epilepsy, despite its physical effects, constitutes a disease of the mind if it results in impairment of mental function.
  • The Lords emphasized that the internal origin of the condition was key, considering the epileptic episode as a failure of normal mental processes.
  • The decision highlighted that both mental and physical disorders disrupting reasoning could satisfy the insanity defence if they prevent understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the act.

Legal Principles

  • A "disease of the mind" for the insanity defence includes internal medical conditions that impair mental functioning, not limited to purely psychological disorders.
  • The M'Naghten Rules focus on the defendant’s reasoning ability and mental control at the time of the act.
  • The origin of the condition—internal versus external—is central to determining its classification under insanity.
  • The law recognizes that conditions with both physical and mental effects, such as epilepsy, can meet the legal test for insanity if they affect mental faculties.
  • Previous decisions, such as Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 and Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399, were reaffirmed, highlighting the focus on internal causes and their mental effects.

Conclusion

The House of Lords in Sullivan [1984] AC 156 clarified that internal medical conditions like epilepsy can constitute a disease of the mind under the insanity defence, provided they impair mental functioning and preclude understanding the act or its wrongfulness. This judgment established clear guidelines for applying the M'Naghten Rules to internal conditions, ensuring consistent evaluation of insanity claims.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal