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 AC 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.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Criminal Law | Defences Notes (32 pages) |
Criminal Law | Defences Short Notes (28 pages) |
GDL Criminal Law | General Defences Notes (10 pages) |