DEFENCES: AUTOMATISM
- Created by: pwatkins05
- Created on: 27-10-21 16:26
View mindmap
- AUTOMATISM
- defence available if the act committed was:
- a) involuntary and
- e.g. a reflex, spasm or convulsion: reduced/partial control is insufficient as loss of control must be total
- b) caused by an external factor
- e.g. a blow to the head (concussion), a sneezing fit, hypnotism or the effect of a drug. in diabetes cases, hypoglycaemia will attract the defence
- the defence will NOT be available for self-induced automatism
- a) involuntary and
- definition: 'An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion'
- KEY CASES
- Bratty 1963
- legal test of automatism created by Lord Denning
- Broome v Perkins 1987
- defence requires total loss of control- hypoglycaemic state insufficient
- R v Bailey 1983
- defence unavailable for self-induced automatism- failure to control condition
- the defence will NOT be available for self-induced automatism
- Bratty 1963
- defence available if the act committed was:
Comments
No comments have yet been made