Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law - Defence Of Automatism > Non Insane Automatism > Flashcards

Non Insane Automatism Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What is an example of an involuntary natural reaction?

A

A sneeze

A motorist loses control when a swarm of bees fly into the car and sting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is an example of an external factor?

A

A blow to the head
Effects of anaesthetic
A result of medication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is Hill v Baxter (1958) relevant to?

A

External factor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What year was Hill v Baxter?

A

1958

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What case was in 1958?

A

Hill v Baxter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What was said in Hill v Baxter (1958)?

A

The automatism must be caused by an external factor and supporting credible evidence is needed to raise the defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When does non insane automatism occur?

A

If there is an involuntary natural reaction

Where the defendant is not conscious of his actions due to an external factor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is automatism referred to?

A

Non-insane automatism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What does a successful plea of automatism lead to?

A

An acquittal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What did Denning summarise automatism as in the case of Bratty (1963)?

A

Automatism means an act done by the muscles without any control by he mind such as a spasm; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done while suffering from concussion’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In what case did denning summarise automatism?

A

Bratty (1963)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the case of Bratty (1963) relevant to?

A

Denning defining automatism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What case happened in 1963?

A

Bratty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

In what year did the case of Bratty take place?

A

1963

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What must be proved to successfully plead the defence of automatism? CHECK THIS

A

The defendant must show that the automatism caused a total loss of control over their body movements. Partial loss of control will not suffice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Is the defence of automatism available to the defendant if they partially lost control of their bodily movements?

A

No, only full loss of control.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What types of crimes require a total loss of voluntary control?

A

Crimes of strict liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Which case illustrates that crimes of strict liability require a completely loss of voluntary control?

A

R v Isitt (1978)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the case of R v Isitt (1978) relevant to?

A

That crimes of strict liability require a total loss of voluntary control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What case took place in 1978?

A

R v Isitt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

In what year did the case of R v Isitt take place?

A

1978

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What happened in the case of R v Isitt (1978)?

A

The defendant was convicted of drink driving after failing to stop after a road accident, however he had avoided a police car and a road block illustrating he still had some control. The medical evidence also said he was not in a dissociative state.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What case illustrates the defence of automatism has a limited scope?

A

Broome v Perkins (1987)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What does the case of Broome v Perkins (1987) illustrate?

A

The defence of automatism has a limited scope

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

How can you use the case of Broome V Perkins (1987)?

A

As an evaluation point that the defence has a limited scope. This could be good or bad as it means people cannot manipulate the system and get away with crimes but it could also be argued its bad because it means some people who genuinely lost control don’t have access to the defence. However, judges and juries work hard to seek justice and make sure this is not the case.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Explain the evaluation point of the defence having a limited scope…

A

This could be good or bad as it means people cannot manipulate the system and get away with crimes but it could also be argued its bad because it means some people who genuinely lost control don’t have access to the defence. However, judges and juries work hard to seek justice and make sure this is not the case.

27
Q

In what year was the case of Broome v Perkins?

A

1987

28
Q

What case took place in 1987?

A

Broome v Perkins

29
Q

What happened in the case of Broome v Perkins (1987)?

A

The defendant was a diabetic who went into a hypoglycaemic state despite eating a mars bar to counteract the effect of insulin. He hit another car and couldn’t remember anything about the journey but reported the incident to the police upon seeing the damage.

30
Q

What was the outcome of Broome v Perkins (1987)?

A

The magistrates dismissed the case based on automatism.
The prosecution then appealed to the QBD and were successful.
The court decided that because the defendant was able to exercise some voluntary control over his movements he was no acting entirely voluntarily, therefore the defence was not available. He responded to gross stimuli and therefore had been driving.

31
Q

Which decision of which case contrasts that of Broome v Perkins (1987)?

A

R v Whoolley (1997)

32
Q

What case took place in 1997?

A

R V Whoolley

33
Q

In what year did the case of R v Whoolley take place?

A

1997

34
Q

What does the case of R v Whoolley (1997) demonstrate?

A

That sneezing is an involuntary act the decision was controversial in comparison to Broome v Perkins (1997)

35
Q

What happened in the case of R v Whoolley (1997)?

A

The defendant caused a 7 car pile up and claims this was the result of a sneezing attack and he lost control.

36
Q

What was the out come of the case of R v Whoolley?

A

The court decided a sneezing attack was the type of involuntary act that came under the defence of automatism

37
Q

What effects how much loss of control is required for mens rea crimes?

A

It depends on what the crime was

38
Q

How do crimes of strict liability and crimes or mens rea differ in regards to the availability of the defence of automatism?

A

For crimes of strict liability it is required there is a complete loss of voluntary control whereas crimes of men’s rea there does not need to be a complete loss of control but it is dependant on the crime involved.

39
Q

For crimes of men’s rea, what is sometimes classed as automatism?

A

A dissociative state caused by some extraordinary event

40
Q

What case illustrates that courts may be prepared to rule that a dissociative state may be classed as automatism?

A

R v T (1990)

41
Q

What does the case of R v T (1990) illustrate?

A

That sometimes courts may be prepared to rule that a dissociative state caused by some extraordinary event may class as automatism

42
Q

What case happened in 1990?

A

R v T

43
Q

In what year did R v T take place?

A

1990

44
Q

What happened in the case of R v T (1990)?

A

A young female was charged with robbery and ABH. A week later it was discovered that she had been raped 3 days prior to arrest and was diagnosed with PTSD, with the consequence that she was in a dissociative state.

45
Q

What was the outcome of R v T (1990)?

A

The judge deemed it appropriate to leave the issue of automatism to the jury.

46
Q

What did the judge do in the case of R v T (1990)?

A

Leave the issue of automatism to the jury because rape could have an appalling effect on a young woman

47
Q

Which case undermined R v Narborough (2004)

A

R v T (1990)

48
Q

What was the outcome of R v Narborough (2004)?

A

The defence of automatism was not available to him

49
Q

How can you use the guidance in R v T (1990) undermine the case of R v Narborough (2004) as evaluation?

A

It shows that there the defence of automatism has a limited scope and only in rare circumstances in men’s rea crimes will a dissociative state be accepted

50
Q

Is the defence of automatism available if it was self induced?

A

No

51
Q

What case illustrates that the defence of automatism is not available if it is self induced?

A

R v Bailey (1983)

52
Q

What does the case of R v Bailey (1973) illustrate?

A

That the defence of automatism is not available if the defendant has placed himself in a state of automatism.

53
Q

In what year was the case of R v Bailey?

A

1983

54
Q

What case look place in 1983?

A

R v Bailey

55
Q

What happened in the case of R v Bailey (1983)?

A

The defendant was a diabetic and injured his ex-girlfriends new boyfriend in a hypoglycaemic attack. He had taken his insulin but not eaten enough.

56
Q

What was the outcome of R v Bailey (1983)?

A

That the defence of automatism was unavailable, there was insufficient medical evidence to raise the defence of automatism

57
Q

What was outlined in the case of R v Quick (1973)?

A

‘A self-induced capacity will not excuse…nor will one which could have been reasonably foreseen as a result of doing something or omitting to do something’

58
Q

Briefly what are the evaluation points for the defence of automatism?

A

Distinguishing internal and external causes
Judges adopt the public policy approach rather then adhering to legal principles
Sleepwalking

59
Q

Explain the distinguishing internal and external causes evaluation point…

A

Distinguishing between internal and external causes to decide if a defendant is entitled to plead automatism or not leads to absurd outcomes e.g R v Quick (1983) and R v Hennessy (1989) the main reason for this is because apparently an internal factor is more likely to reoccur.

60
Q

According to the court, why is there a need to distinguish between internal and external factors?

A

Because an internal factor is more likely to reoccur.

61
Q

What evidence contradicts the courts stance on distinguishing between internal and external factors?

A

Many medical conditions are due to a combination of internal and external factors

62
Q

Explain the public policy evaluation point…

A

Judges have been guided by public policy approaches for the sake of public protection rather than legal principles. In Bratty Denning set out the continuing danger theory which has been influential in subsequent decisions

63
Q

What illustrates the court take a public policy approach?

A

Dennings continuing danger theory which was set or in Bratty

64
Q

Explain the sleepwalking evaluation point…

A

There’s debate about whether sleepwalking can be considered as an autonomous state. Although Denning included it in the definition of automatism in the case of bratty it was an obiter statement which was not followed in R v Burgess

A2 Law - Defence Of Automatism (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions