Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant . Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse.
In R v Mkize, an important case in South African criminal law, especially as it pertains to the defence of automatism, the accused was charged with the murder of his sister, whom he had stabbed to death. The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that he had suffered an attack known as "epileptic equivalent."
Automatism is a state where the muscles act without any control by the mind, or with a lack of consciousness. [3] [4] One may suddenly fall ill, into a dream like state as a result of post traumatic stress, [5] or even be "attacked by a swarm of bees" and go into an automatic spell. [6]
Criminal law, criminal liability, automatism, epilepsy, culpable homicide In R v Schoonwinkel , an important case in South African criminal law , particularly as it applies to the defence of automatism , the driver of a motor vehicle was charged with culpable homicide, having collided with and killed a passenger in another car. [ 1 ]
In a civil proceeding or criminal prosecution under the common law or under statute, a defendant may raise a defense (or defence) [a] in an effort to avert civil liability or criminal conviction. A defense is put forward by a party to defeat a suit or action brought against the party, and may be based on legal grounds or on factual claims.
R v Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal automatism defence. [2] On an early morning on May 24, 1987, Kenneth Parks drove 20 kilometres from Pickering, Ontario, to the house of his in-laws in Scarborough, Ontario. He entered their house with a key they had previously given him and used a tire ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
R v Bailey is a 1983 decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales considering criminal responsibility as to non-insane automatism.The broad questions addressed were whether a hampered state of mind, which the accused may have a legal and moral duty to lessen or avoid, gave him a legal excuse for his actions; and whether as to any incapacity there was strong countering evidence ...