General Defences: Automatism

Definition, Cases, Actus Reus, Self Induced Automatism, Criticisms, and Reforms

?
  • Created by: Anisha
  • Created on: 10-06-11 15:08
Name the case: D strangled V with a stocking, claiming that he had suffered from psychomotor epilepsy
Bratty v AG for NI
1 of 13
What was the outcome of the case?
If insanity is rejected, then D can raise the defence of Automatism
2 of 13
Name the case: D failed to stop at a stop sign, claimed being attacked by a swarm of bees
Hill v Baxter
3 of 13
What does this mean: The Act is involuntary- not intentional
D has no Mens Rea of the crime
4 of 13
What is self induced automatism?
Their conduct is a result of what they have been doing
5 of 13
If D is reckless in getting into the automatistic state
No Defence
6 of 13
This can be evidenced further by
Bailey
7 of 13
What happened in this case?
D, diabetic, failed to eat after taking insulin
8 of 13
Result of voluntarily being intoxicated
Rarely relied on as a defence
9 of 13
What happened in this case?
D&V took LSD, D hallucinated being attacked by snakes, killed V for protection
10 of 13
If D does not know that the action will lead to automatism
Defence
11 of 13
A case which supports this is:
Hardie
12 of 13
What does the Draft Criminal Code say about Automatism?
They want to reform the law, by having a new definition for Automatism which includes epilepsy and sleepwalking
13 of 13

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What was the outcome of the case?

Back

If insanity is rejected, then D can raise the defence of Automatism

Card 3

Front

Name the case: D failed to stop at a stop sign, claimed being attacked by a swarm of bees

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What does this mean: The Act is involuntary- not intentional

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What is self induced 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 »