The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

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 c

With regards to sugar levels in the body, it can be divided into two categories. They are as follows: - 1) Hypoglycemia (a lack of glucose in the body). Hypoglycemia is caused by external factors i.e. the defendant not doing something he should be doing or doing something that he shouldn’t be doing. In such instances, depending on the facts, the defense can raise the defense of automatism and 2) Hyperglycemia (excess sugar in the body). Hyperglycemia is a condition that occurs naturally and it is caused by internal factors. In such instances, the defense can raise the defense of insanity In R v Quick (1973) the defendant a male nurse who was a diabetic had taken insulin without consuming any food, and in addition to that had consumed alcohol which aggravated the situation (whisky and rum). He assaulted a patient who was a paraplegic and inflicted injuries that included a broken nose and a black eye. The defendant was charged under s.47 of the Offences Against Pe

In 1964 parliament passed the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 which takes into account the defendant’s fitness to plead with regards to defendants who suffer from a disability. S. 4 of the act reads as follows: - Finding of unfitness to plead: - (1) This section applies where on the trial of a person the question arises (at the instance of the defense or otherwise) whether the accused is under a disability, that is to say, under any disability such that apart from this Act it would constitute a bar to his being tried. (2) If, having regard to the nature of the supposed disability, the court are of opinion that it is expedient to do so and in the interests of the accused, they may postpone consideration of the question of fitness to be tried until any time up to the opening of the case for the defense. (3) If, before the question of fitness to be tried falls to be determined, the jury return a verdict of acquittal on the count or each of the counts on which th