Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

R v Quick

[1973] QB 910

Case summary last updated at 11/01/2020 17:56 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Quick

 D 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. D was convicted. CA said clearly it wasn’t a case of insanity since within the M’Naughten 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). 

R v Quick crops up in following areas of law