Lord Denning: automatism is any 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 e.g. concussion
1 of 11
M’Naghten (1843)
This is because, every man is presumed sane, but he may rebut this presumption
2 of 11
Broome v Perkins (1987)
Def claimed automatism defence after careless driving during hypoglycaemic attack-defence failed as evidence showed def swerved to avoid cars and braked
3 of 11
A-G’s Ref (No 2 of 1992)(1994)
CA: an impaired or reduced loss of control is not sufficient for automatism
4 of 11
Coley (2013)
Def’s conduct in preparing to commit the attack had been sufficiently organised for the jury to conclude that his conduct was voluntary and thus guilty of attempted
5 of 11
T (1990)
The def’s state of mind was caused by the external event of the ****, and was therefore, classed as automatism
6 of 11
Quick (1973)
Hypoglycaemia is caused by the external factor of taking insulin and not by the diabetes itself-thus, gives rise to defence of automatism
7 of 11
Hill v Baxter (1958)
A def who involuntarily commits a criminal offence through a reflex action or muscle spasm will have the defence of automatism available to him
8 of 11
A-G’s Ref (2001)
Def accidently put foot down on accelerator then the brake, causing the vehicle to move forwards-defence of automatism was not available as the def’s action was a voluntary physical movement
9 of 11
Bailey (1983)
If the automotive state was self-induced and the def was at fault, the defence of automatism may only apply to specific intent offences, not basic intent offences
10 of 11
Bailey (1983)
In relation to basic intent offences, if the def is reckless as to the self-inducement of automatism, then the defence cannot apply as the nec recklessness for the MR of that offence will have been established
11 of 11
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
This is because, every man is presumed sane, but he may rebut this presumption
Back
M’Naghten (1843)
Card 3
Front
Def claimed automatism defence after careless driving during hypoglycaemic attack-defence failed as evidence showed def swerved to avoid cars and braked
Back
Card 4
Front
CA: an impaired or reduced loss of control is not sufficient for automatism
Back
Card 5
Front
Def’s conduct in preparing to commit the attack had been sufficiently organised for the jury to conclude that his conduct was voluntary and thus guilty of attempted
Comments
No comments have yet been made