What is the main case confirming non-insane Automatism?
Hill v Baxter
1 of 10
What does the case of Hill v Baxter show?
It shows that d must have a lack of voluntary control
2 of 10
What does the case of Hennessey confirm?
It confirms that an external cause of an involuntary action is likely to satisfy automatism
3 of 10
What is the case which described that automatism is 'an act done by the muscles of the body without control of the mind?
Bratty
4 of 10
What case states that there must be total destruction of control?
AG Ref No.2 1992
5 of 10
What does the cases of Kemp and Burgess confirm about automatism?
It confirms that an effective loss of control makes a person not responsible for their actions.
6 of 10
What is the case which shows that self-induced automatism may be accepted, but only if d was not being reckless about thw risks of involuntary actions?
Bailey
7 of 10
What does the case of R v T show?
It shows that an external traumatic event may lead a person to have no voluntary control & commit crimes as a result.
8 of 10
What does the case of R v T say that it excludes?
It says that the ordinary stresses of life are not external traumatic events that can lead to no voluntary control
9 of 10
What happened in this case?
D was ***** whilst in a traumatic event which caused her to commit burglaries
10 of 10
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
What does the case of Hill v Baxter show?
Back
It shows that d must have a lack of voluntary control
Card 3
Front
What does the case of Hennessey confirm?
Back
Card 4
Front
What is the case which described that automatism is 'an act done by the muscles of the body without control of the mind?
Back
Card 5
Front
What case states that there must be total destruction of control?
Comments
No comments have yet been made