In the context of R v. Hennessy (1989), what external factors were mentioned regarding stress and depression?

In the context of R v. Hennessy (1989), the case primarily deals with the defense of automatism and the distinction between insane and non-insane automatism. When considering the implications of external factors like stress and depression, the ruling highlighted that while these factors can influence a person's state of mind, they do not contribute to non-insane automatism.

Non-insane automatism refers to a state where an individual acts without conscious control due to external factors, which can include physical stimuli or stressors. However, stress and depression are regarded as internal conditions that affect mental functioning but do not fit within the framework of non-insane automatism. The court maintained that such conditions do not negate criminal responsibility as they do not arise from an external cause, which is essential for establishing non-insane automatism.

Therefore, the emphasis on these points in the ruling clarifies how the court interprets the relationship between mental states like stress and depression and legal responsibility in criminal matters.