

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The concept of automatism as a legal defence in english law, focusing on its two types: insane automatism and non-insane automatism. Relevant cases, such as bratty v attorney-general for northern ireland and r v t, and the distinction between specific intent and basic intent crimes. It also covers self-induced automatism and the key case of r v bailey (1983).
What you will learn
Typology: Study notes
1 / 2
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
A level Law: 3.16 Defences: Automatism
Where a person knowingly becomes an automaton, in other words he knows that his actions are likely to bring about an automatic state and he commits a basic intent offence, the rules are slightly different. The defence will always be available for specific intent crimes because it would be unfair to convict a defendant who does not have the required mens rea for an offence. The rules for self-induced automatism, where a basic intent crime is committed, were laid down in R v Bailey (1983). This case outlined that automatism cannot be a defence, where: a) The defendant has been reckless in becoming an automaton; or b) Where the automatism has been caused by illegal drink or drugs.
R v Bailey (1983) – the defendant was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin. He became aggressive and hit someone over the head with an iron bar. The court held that the defence of automatism was not available because the defendant was reckless in becoming an automaton. However, the judge in the case did stipulate that the defence of automatism CAN BE USED where: c) The defendant does not know that his actions are likely to result in an automatic state. This is because it cannot be said that the defendant has been reckless in becoming an automaton. CASE: R v Hardie (1994) – the defendant was depressed because of a relationship split, and took some Valium that had been prescribed for his former girlfriend. She encouraged him to take them to calm him down, but unknown to him they had the opposite effect and he set fire to a wardrobe. The judge allowed the defence of automatism because he had not been reckless in getting into that state.