Judgement for the case R v Quick
Table Of Contents
Defendant was a nurse and attacked a patient during a hypoglycaemic attack after he had taken his insulin with spirits and he had no recollection of the attack.
Judge didn’t allow automatism to be put to jury but allowed insanity to be put.
Defendant was convicted.
-
CA said clearly it wasn’t a case of insanity since within the M’Naghten definition insanity was disease of the mind, not a transitory condition caused by external stimulus.
Instead the defence of automatism should have been put and therefore the convection was unsafe and quashed (don’t say whether defence of automatism would have succeeded or not).
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on R v Quick
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Criminal Law | Defences Notes (32 pages) |
| GDL Criminal Law | General Defences Notes (10 pages) |
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.