Crime CLI-Insanity VIII
Automatism
even if it is self-induced can be a defense to basic intent crimes i.e. crimes
where the mens rea that is required to secure a conviction is either negligence
or recklessness).
In
R v Bailey (1983) the defendant a diabetic went over to the house of his
ex-lover’s new partner (victim), clearly upset over the fact that his
ex-girlfriend had moved on. The victim invited the defendant in to discuss the
matter, and the defendant who had taken his insulin but had not consumed any
food, prior to the visit, felt that he was going into hypoglycemic, a state
caused by a lack of glucose in the body and asked the victim for a glass of
sugared water and upon drinking the water, the defendant was about to leave. As
he was about to step out, he dropped his glove, and the victim bent over to
pick it up and while he was doing so, the defendant hit him over the head with
an iron bar.
The
defendant was charged under s.18 of the Offences Against Person Act (1861) and
the defendant countered by stating that he had no control of his actions,
having at that stage succumbed to hypoglycemia and raised the defense of
automatism. The trial judge ruled that automatism, self-induced or otherwise is
not a defense or a mitigating factor when it comes to basic intent crimes and
the jury convicted accordingly. The defendant appealed.
The
Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and ruled that while there may have been
a misdirection, it was not sufficient to render the conviction unsafe.
It
was decided that self-induced automatism, other than that due to intoxication,
i.e. automatism that arises from excessive drinking or from the use of drugs,
may be a defense in basic intent crimes.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment