Automatism cases

HideShow resource information
  • 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
    • Rape 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


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »