I am reading through my textbook and I am interested in the concept of insanity. First the rules of an insanity plea:
To successfully plead insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the defendant D was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, so as not to know the nature and quality of the act they were doing; or, if they did know it, that they did not know what they were doing was wrong.
Let us say that the indictment included rape, ABH and GBH.
On assessment D was found to have been psychotic at the time of the offence (disease of the mind) and was under the impression that the claimant C was an android who was sent to look after him. Also, consent does not apply to non-sentient entities. So it is not illegal to rape C, in fact that crime does not exist. (They did not know what they were doing was wrong). The voices in his head also contributed to the assaults. Also, attacking a non-sentient entity amounts to nothing more than criminal damage (not to know the nature and quality of the act they were doing).
The determination of insanity is down to the jury, but the above does satisfy all the criteria. Am I right here?