AG v Prior [2001] JRC 35 (09 February 2001)

AG v Prior [2001] JRC 35 (09 February 2001)

The McNaghten Rules do not form part of Jersey law and are not to be adopted as the test for insanity under the Criminal Justice (Insane Persons)(Jersey) Law 1964. Instead, 'insanity' is to be defined as unsoundness of mind affecting criminal behaviour to such a substantial degree that the jury considers the defendant ought not to be found criminally responsible, allowing for both cognitive and volitional impairment and requiring objective medical evidence, in line with Convention rights and local legal tradition.

Citation
[2001] JRC 35
Parties
Defendant: Jason Cyril Prior; Prosecutor: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
09 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Point of Law
Outcome
Ruling on preliminary point of law; definition of insanity established for Jersey law.
Legal Topics
Insanity Defence, Criminal Responsibility, European Convention on Human Rights, Interpretation of 'insanity', Mens Rea, Volitional and Cognitive Tests
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Insanity Defence Criminal Responsibility European Convention on Human Rights Interpretation of 'insanity' Mens Rea +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Cyril Prior

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preliminary Point of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning of 'insanity' under Article 2(1) of the Criminal Justice (Insane Persons)(Jersey) Law, 1964?
  2. 2 Should the McNaghten Rules be adopted as the test for insanity in Jersey?
  3. 3 Does the McNaghten Rules' definition of insanity comply with the European Convention on Human Rights?

Ratio Decidendi

The McNaghten Rules do not form part of Jersey law and are not to be adopted as the test for insanity under the Criminal Justice (Insane Persons)(Jersey) Law 1964. Instead, 'insanity' is to be defined as unsoundness of mind affecting criminal behaviour to such a substantial degree that the jury considers the defendant ought not to be found criminally responsible, allowing for both cognitive and volitional impairment and requiring objective medical evidence, in line with Convention rights and local legal tradition.

Court Disposition

Ruling on preliminary point of law; definition of insanity established for Jersey law.

Orders

  • Jury or Jurats to be directed that a person is insane within Article 2 of the 1964 Law if, at the time of the offence, unsoundness of mind affected criminal behaviour to such a substantial degree that the defendant ought not to be found criminally responsible.