Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


R v Bailey

[1983] Crim.L.R. 353

Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 08:07 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Bailey

 A guy hit a man over the head with a metal bar during a hypoglaecemic attack and was convicted of wounding, after the judge said that the defence of automatism did not apply where that state was self-induced. The CA noted that the direction was incorrect and that self induced automatism was a defence except where the defendant had put themselves into that state recklessly (i.e. in the knowledge that it could provoke violent behaviour etc e.g. drugs or alcohol). Despite the misdirection, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the defendant knew that his omission to eat after taking insulin could provoke such behaviour. 

R v Bailey crops up in following areas of law