Automatism - Defences

A quiz for AQA Law Unit 3 Students on the defence of automatism.

HideShow resource information
The definition of 'automatism' is...
'An act done by the muscles without any control of the mind such as a spasm'
1 of 7
The answer from the previous question was defined in which case?
Bratty V Attorney General for N. Ireland
2 of 7
What happened in the case of 'Bailey?'
Defendant was a diabetic who failed to eat after taking insulin and as a result hit someone over the head with an iron bar.
3 of 7
The case of 'Bailey' is related to what legal point on automatism?
Where the automatism is knowingly self-induced, it can only provide a defence to an offence of specific intent as the defendant lacks the required mens rea.
4 of 7
For the defence of automatism....
...the defendant raises and the prosecution must then disprove it.
5 of 7
'Non-insane' automatism is....
Where the cause is an external one. Where such a defence succeeds, it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guilty.
6 of 7
What is the difference between 'insane automatism' and 'non-insane automatism'
'Non-insane automatism' is where the automatism is caused by an external factor and 'insane automatism' is where the automatism is caused by a disease of the mind.
7 of 7

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

The answer from the previous question was defined in which case?

Back

Bratty V Attorney General for N. Ireland

Card 3

Front

What happened in the case of 'Bailey?'

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

The case of 'Bailey' is related to what legal point on automatism?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

For the defence of automatism....

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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