View mindmap
  • Automatism
    • D may try to argue automatism as a defence to these crimes
    • first, D must be acting involuntarily
    • Bratty shows this means an act done by the muscles without control of the mind
    • AG Ref (No 2 1992) shows partial loss of control is not enough; D's act must be totally involuntary
    • IF the jury feel it was involuntary, this conduct must come from an external factor
    • R v Quick shows that drugs can be an external factor that put D in an involuntary state
    • if self induced..
      • it must be proven that this negated D's mens rea
      • it works differently for specific intent crimes (where only intention is enough) and basic intent crimes (where D can be reckless)
      • R v Bailey shows that if D induces the state and commits a specific intent crime, he WILL NOT be guilty if he lacks mens rea. if he has mens rea despite taking the substance, he WILL still be guilty
      • Mejewski shows that if D commits a basic intent crime, he will have recklessness in inducing himself so WILL have mens rea
      • R v Hardie clarifies that if D did not know he was inducing himself, WILL NOT have recklessness
    • figure out if self induced, and if specific or basic, then apply
    • R v T shows that **** can be an external factor


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »