Remove ads

We have detected that Javascript is not enabled in your browser. The dynamic nature of our site means that Javascript must be enabled to function properly. Please read our terms and conditions for more information.

Flashcards by Jessica 'JessieB, created more than 1 year ago

A Levels Law A2 (Cases) Flashcards on A2 Law: Cases - Defence of Automatism , created by Jessica 'JessieB on 29/04/2014.

565

	Created by Jessica 'JessieB almost 10 years ago

A2 Law: Cases - Defence of Automatism

/ 19

Please wait - loading…

Case Outcome: Lord Denning summary of 'Automatism' -
Bratty (1963)

Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Hill v Baxter (1958)

Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Hill v Baxter (1958)

Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Watmore v Jenkins (1962)

Case Outcome : Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Watmore v Jenkins (1962)

Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Broome v Perkins (1987)

Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Broome v Perkins (1987)

Case 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)

Case 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)

Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Whoolley (1997)

Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Whoolley (1997)

Case Outcome: Sleepwalking (MR) -
Burgess (1991)

Case Outcome: A Dissociate State (MR) -
R v T (1990)

Case Outcome: A Dissociate State (MR) -
Narborough (2004)

Case Facts: Automatism must not be self-induced -
Bailey (1983)

Case Outcome: Automatism must not be self-induced -
Bailey (1983)

Case Facts: Automatism must not be self-induced -
R v C (2007); Clarke (2009)

Case Outcome: Automatism must not be self-induced -
R v C (2007); Clarke (2009)

Case Outcome: Where the defendant's automatism was caused by drink/drugs, then the defence of intoxication -
Lipman (1970)