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]
Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects ... Automatism (law) B. ... Competence (law) Competing harms; Consent (criminal law) Corpse-like obedience ...
R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92 was an appeal in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that adjudged sleepwalking entailing violence from an internal, organic cause amounts to insane automatism. At first instance Burgess was likewise found not guilty by reason of insanity as his case fell under the M'Naghten Rules .
R v Quick [1973] QB 910 is an English criminal case, as to sane automatism and the sub-category of self-inducement of such a state. The court ruled that it may not be used as a defence if the defendant's loss of self-control was on the part of negligence in consuming or not consuming something which someone ought to but the jury must be properly directed so as to make all relevant findings of ...
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 ...
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 ...