R v Johnson [2007] EWCA Crim 1978
Facts
D suffered from schizophrenia Whilst in a schizophrenic episode, he stabbed people At the trial, the two psychiatrists agreed that the D was aware of the nature of his acts and knew they were illegal, however one noted he may not have been aware that he was committing a morally wrong act Despite this, the High Court judge ruled against the defence of insanity applying, holding that the D’s knowledge that his act was legally wrong meant the defence could not apply The D appealed, arguing that the ruling handed by the High Court was incorrect and the defence of insanity could be raised
Legal Issue
Whether the insanity defence required knowledge that the act was legally wrong rather than merely morally wrong, and whether the evidence met that requirement.
Held
The Court of Appeal dismissed Johnson’s appeal. Following Windle, it held that wrongness under the relevant limb of the M’Naghten Rules meant legal wrongness. The psychiatric evidence indicated that he understood the nature of his acts and knew they were unlawful, even if his condition affected his appreciation of their moral character. That evidence did not support the proposed insanity defence. The court acknowledged criticisms of the rule and discussion in other jurisdictions, but did not treat itself as free to replace the established English approach. The judgment therefore concerned the legal effects required by insanity doctrine, rather than denying the existence or seriousness of Johnson’s schizophrenia.
⭐ Legal Principle
In the case of Johnson [2007] EWCA Crim 1978, it was established that where the wrongdoer knew his act was illegal meant the defence of insanity under the M’Naghten Rules cannot apply. Being unaware that it was morally wrong did not matter.
Significance
Johnson confirms the English approach in Windle that knowledge of wrongness under the relevant limb of the M’Naghten Rules means knowledge of legal wrongness. A psychiatric diagnosis does not by itself establish the legal defence. The court acknowledged criticism and different approaches elsewhere but considered itself bound by existing authority. An exam answer should distinguish the medical condition, the cognitive effects required by the rules, and the separate question whether the defendant knew the act was legally wrong.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was schizophrenia alone insufficient?
The insanity defence requires the effects specified by the M’Naghten Rules, not merely a diagnosis of mental illness. The evidence indicated that Johnson understood the nature of what he was doing and knew it was illegal. On that basis, the relevant legal threshold was not met despite his serious psychiatric condition.
Does wrong mean morally wrong in this authority?
The Court of Appeal followed Windle and treated it as meaning contrary to law. An inability to appreciate moral wrongness did not establish the defence where the defendant knew the act was illegal. That is the English doctrinal position applied in the case, not a statement that moral understanding is medically unimportant.
Could the Court of Appeal adopt the alternative Australian approach?
The court discussed the difficulties identified in other authorities but treated the English rule as binding. It did not regard this appeal as an appropriate route to replace Windle with a broader moral-wrongness test. Students should distinguish criticism of the rule from an operative decision changing it.