Fichas
A2 Law: Cases - Defence of Automatism
Fichas del conjunto (19)
- 1Case Outcome: Lord Denning summary of 'Automatism' - Bratty (1963)"An act 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, such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking."
A successful plea leads to an acquittal. - 2Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - Hill v Baxter (1958)The defendant drove through a stop sign and collided with another car.
- 3Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - Hill v Baxter (1958)He was charged with dangerous driving by acquitted by the Magistrates because he claimed he had not remembered anything from some distance before reaching the stop sign. This decision was reversed by the Divisional Court as there was no evidence to support a defence.
- 4Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - Watmore v Jenkins (1962)The defendant drove dangerously whilst suffering from progressive hypoglycemia. He eventually lost consciousnesses over a five mile journey and crashed his car.
- 5Case Outcome : Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - Watmore v Jenkins (1962)His plea of automatism was at first accepted but then rejected as he had drove five miles. The court held that there wasn't a complete destruction of voluntary control.
- 6Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - Broome v Perkins (1987)The defendant, whom was a diabetic, went into a hypoglycaemic state even after eating a Mars Bar to conteract the effects of insulin. He hit another car whilst driving on the road. He couldn't remember what happened but saw the damage on his car and went to the police.
- 7Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - Broome v Perkins (1987)The prosecution appealed to the QBD and the plea was successful after being dismissed by the Magistrates. He was found guilty as he wasn't acting in an entirely involuntary manner.
- 8Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - A-G's Reference No 2 of 1992 (1993)The defendant was a lorry driver who, after driving for several hours, bit a broken-down car on the hard shoulder, killing two people. He claimed he was in a trance-like state brought on by driving for so long.
- 9Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - A-G's Reference No 2 of 1992 (1993)He was, at first, acquitted but then on appeal, the courts held that his trance-like state didn't amount to automatism.
- 10Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - Whoolley (1997)The defendant admitted to driving very close to the car in front when in a traffic queue. He claimed he had a sneezing attack and lost control of his car. He crashed into the car in front which caused a domino effect involving seven further cars.
- 11Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor - Whoolley (1997)The courts said that a sneezing attack came under the defence of automatism.
- 12Case Outcome: Sleepwalking (MR) - Burgess (1991)The appropriate defence is Insanity. (See Insanity.)
- 13Case Outcome: A Dissociate State (MR) - R v T (1990)The defendant, a young female, had been charged with robbery and ABH. Prior to the charge, it was discovered she was raped and she was suffering from PTSD and because of that, she had been in a dissociate state at the time of the offence. The judge left it to the jury to decide.
- 14Case Outcome: A Dissociate State (MR) - Narborough (2004)The defendant was convicted of wounding with intent due to suffering from PTSD after having flashbacks of his sexual abusive childhood. The COA upheld his conviction as there was no medical evidence that suggested when suffering from PTSD are you no longer in control of your actions.
- 15Case Facts: Automatism must not be self-induced - Bailey (1983)The diabetic defendant injured his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend during a hypoglycemic attack. He had taken insulin but hadn't eaten enough.
- 16Case Outcome: Automatism must not be self-induced - Bailey (1983)The COA held that self-induced automatism can provide a defence but but in this case there wasn't enough evidence to raise the defence.
- 17Case Facts: Automatism must not be self-induced - R v C (2007); Clarke (2009)Both defendants were diabetics who lost control of their cars due to a hypoglycemic attack. They both killed a pedestrian.
- 18Case Outcome: Automatism must not be self-induced - R v C (2007); Clarke (2009)They were both charged with death by dangerous driving. Their convictions were upheld as their state of automatism was self-induced.
- 19Case Outcome: Where the defendant's automatism was caused by drink/drugs, then the defence of intoxication - Lipman (1970)(See Intoxication)
Información
- Descripción
- A Levels (Cases) Law A2 Fichas sobre A2 Law: Cases - Defence of Automatism , creado por Jessica 'JessieB el 29/04/2014.
- Creado por
- Jessica 'JessieB
- Visitas
- 672
- Etiquetas
- Valoración