Daniel M'Naghten - Trial

Trial

When M'Naghten was arrested, a bank receipt for £750 was found on him. His father successfully applied to the court to have the money released to finance his defence, and for the case to be adjourned for evidence relating to M'Naghten's state of mind to be gathered. A date was set for Friday 3 March. The speed and efficiency with which M'Naghten's defence was organized suggests that a number of powerful people in law and medicine were waiting for an opportunity to bring about changes in the law on criminal insanity.

M'Naghten's trial for the "wilful murder of Mr Drummond" took place at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, Friday and Saturday, 2-3 March 1843, before Chief Justice Tindal, Justice Williams and Justice Coleridge. When asked to plead guilty or not guilty, M'Naghten had said "I was driven to desperation by persecution" and, when pressed, "I am guilty of firing", which was taken as a not guilty plea. M'Naghten's defence team was led by one of London's best-known barristers, Alexander Cockburn. The case was prosecuted by the solicitor-general, Sir William Follett (the attorney-general being busy in Lancaster prosecuting Feargus O'Connor and 57 other Chartists following the plug riots).

Both prosecution and defence based their case on what constituted a legal defence of insanity. Both sides agreed that M'Naghten suffered from delusions of persecution. The prosecution argued that, in spite of his "partial insanity" he was a responsible agent, capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and conscious that he was committing a crime. Witnesses, including his landlady and his anatomy lecturer were produced to testify that M'Naghten appeared generally sane. Cockburn opened his defence by acknowledging that there were difficulties in the practical application of the principle of English law that held an insane person exempt from legal responsibility and legal punishment. He went on to say that M'Naghten's delusions had led to a break down of moral sense and loss of self-control, which, according to medical experts, had left him in a state where he was no longer a "reasonable and responsible being". He quoted extensively from Scottish jurist Baron Hume, and American psychiatrist Isaac Ray. Witnesses were produced from Glasgow to give evidence about M'Naghten's odd behaviour and complaints of persecution. The defence then called on a number of medical witnesses, including Dr Edward Monro, Sir Alexander Morison, and Dr Forbes Winslow, who testified that M'Naghten's delusions had deprived him of "all restraint over his actions". When the prosecution declined to produce any medical witnesses to counter this evidence, the trial was halted. Follet then made a brief, apologetic closing speech which he concluded with the words "I cannot press for a verdict against the prisoner...". Chief Justice Tindal, in his summing up, stressed that the medical evidence was all on one side, and reminded the jury that if they found the prisoner not guilty on the ground of insanity, proper care would be taken of him. The jury, without retiring, duly returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity.