R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 82
Claim of “communicated insanity” by man convicted of murdering wife
Facts
The appellant (W) was convicted of murdering his wife. His wife had regularly spoke of committing suicide and doctors suggested that she was certifiably insane. Upon arrest, W said to the police: “I suppose they will hang me for this?”
Issue
On appeal, it was contended that W had been suffering from a form of insanity called folie à deux which was communicated to him by his wife as a result of his constant attendance to her, his weak character and her dominating character. Accordingly, the plea of guilty but insane should have been available to the jury. The key question was whether the M’Naghten rules regarding insanity (see R v McNaughten 8 E.R. 718)could be applied in a case of communicated insanity where the accused was not suffering from a specific delusion. Counsel for the W suggested that that the use of the word “wrong” as applied in McNaughten did not mean contrary to law but morally wrong. Accordingly, if W believed that what he was doing was beneficial, despite knowing it was illegal, then he should be excused.
Held
The Court observed that it must not consider whether an act is morally right or wrong but only whether it is lawful or unlawful. The M’Naghten rules applied to all cases of insanity, whatever the nature of the insanity or disease of the mind. In the rules, the word “wrong” means contrary to law. In the present case, W was clearly aware that what he was doing was contrary to law. Therefore, the judge was correct to deny the plea of insanity from the jury.
278 words
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a statement of the law at the time of the decision. R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 82 is still a leading authority on the M’Naghten rules, and the principle that “wrong” in those rules means contrary to law (rather than morally wrong) remains good law in England and Wales.
However, readers should be aware of one important subsequent development. In R v Johnson [2007] EWCA Crim 1978, the Court of Appeal confirmed that Windle remains binding in England and Wales, despite the High Court of Australia having declined to follow it in Stapleton v R (1952). The Court of Appeal in Johnson expressly rejected the argument that “wrong” should be interpreted as morally wrong, reaffirming the Windle position.
It should also be noted that the Law Commission has over the years identified the M’Naghten rules as an area in need of reform, and its 2013 Discussion Paper (Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism) proposed replacing them with a revised statutory test. However, no legislation implementing those proposals has been enacted, and the M’Naghten rules as interpreted in Windle therefore remain the operative law. Students should be aware that this is a recognised area of reform debate.
