Regina v. Stephenson

Nature of the Case

This case involves the defense of insanity (or as the court calls it, mental defect) in a case of recklessness.

Facts

On November 28, 1977, Stephenson went to sleep in a hay stack that he had hollowed out. Stephenson lit a fire of twigs and straw in the hollow for warmth. The fire grew out of control and caused 3,500 pounds worth of damage. Stephenson apologized for the fire and claimed it was an accident. Stephenson was charged with arson which requires an intent to commit arson or the reckless disregard for the risk of one’s actions. An expert witness was called at trial and he testified that the Stephenson suffered from schizophrenia and that he lit the fire without an awareness or an appreciation of the risks involved. Stephenson was convicted and appealed.

Issue

If an individual who cannot appreciate the risks of his behavior due to a mental defect is accused of a crime of recklessness, may that individual be convicted?

Holding and Rule of Law

No. If an individual who cannot appreciate the risks of his behavior due to a mental defect is accused of a crime of recklessness, that individual may not be convicted.

A man is reckless when he can appreciate the risks of his unreasonable actions, but deliberately acts in spite of that risk. This is not what happened here because Stephenson did not appreciate the risk that was involved in setting the haystack on fire and could not foresee the consequences due to a mental defect that was no fault of his own. Since he could not appreciate the risks of his actions, he cannot be charged with a crime of recklessness. The crime of recklessness is meant to punish one who appreciates the risks of his actions but proceeds nevertheless. Stephenson does not fall into this category.

Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Notes

The question of whether a defendant actually could appreciate the risks of his actions is a question of fact for the jury. The Lord Justice merely states the law that says that if a defendant is found unable to appreciate the risk because of a mental defect, he may not be convicted. The question of fact, however, remains the province of the jury.