Automatism cases
- Created by: Amy Baron
- Created on: 13-01-13 15:40
View mindmap
- Automatism Cases
- Automatism requires a total loss of mental faculties
- R v Isitt 1978
- Broome v Perkins 1987
- Automatism will be unavailable if D's involuntary state is self induced
- Kay v Butterworth 1945
- R v Clarke 2009
- R v C 2007
- A plea of Automatism should usually be supported by medical evidence
- Hill v Baxter 1958
- Confirmed this as a requirment
- R v C 2007
- Sneezing was caused by an external factor and so the appropriate defence is automatism
- R v Woolley 1997
- Automatism requires a total loss of control
- Attorney General's Ref. No. 2 1992 (1993)
- The defence of Automatism can be used in cases of sexsomnia and D can can be acquitted
- R v Bilton 2005
- R v Ecott 2007
- Automatism due to non-prescribed soporific drugs can be used as a defence
- R v Hardie 1984
- The defence of Automatism is available for specific intent offences and for some basic intent offences
- R v Bailey 1983
- **** as an external factor causing exceptional stress is sufficient to establish automatism
- R v T 1990
- Automatism was unavailable because there was too much time between the abuse and the defence
- R v Narborough
- Automatism requires a total loss of mental faculties
Comments
No comments have yet been made