Bailey, R. v [1983] EWCA Crim 2 (11 March 1983)

Bailey, R. v [1983] EWCA Crim 2 (11 March 1983)

The trial judge misdirected the jury by excluding the defence of automatism on the basis of self-induced incapacity, but no miscarriage of justice occurred because the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the appellant acted intentionally and not in a state of automatism.

Citation
[1983] EWCA Crim 2
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Automatism, Mens Rea, Self Induced Incapacity, Recklessness, Diabetes and Criminal Responsibility
Criminal Law Automatism Mens Rea Self Induced Incapacity Recklessness Diabetes and Criminal Responsibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether self-induced automatism due to hypoglycaemia can provide a defence to crimes of specific and basic intent
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the availability of the automatism defence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected the jury by excluding the defence of automatism on the basis of self-induced incapacity, but no miscarriage of justice occurred because the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the appellant acted intentionally and not in a state of automatism.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld