Revolutionise your case law training with
CaseReVision
videos
BACK TO CASE LAW SELECTION

Automatism

Hill v Baxter (1958)
Hill v Baxter (1958)
The defendant drove through a halt sign and he told the magistrates that he could not remember anything for some distance before he did this. The defendant was acquitted of dangerous driving because of this. The Divisional Court allowed the prosecution's
R v T (1990)
R v T (1990)
The defendant took part in a robbery and an assault. Three days previously, she was raped. Her defence was that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from being raped. Se said she had acted in a dream-like state. The judge allowed the defen
Bailey (1983)
Bailey (1983)
The Defendant failed to eat properly after taking insulin. This caused a hypoglycaemic state because he was diabetic. While this was happening he hit V on the head with an iron bar. The judge ruled that automatism was not available as a defence. This
Hardie (1984)
Hardie (1984)
The Defendant took some Valium belonging to his ex-girlfriend. He was upset by the breakdown of his relationship. She encouraged him to do this because she said that it would calm him down. He was charged under s 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 af
Clarke (2009)
Clarke (2009)
The Defendant suffered a hypoglycaemic episode while driving. The reason being that he was a diabetic. He lost control of his car, hit and killed a pedestrian. He was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. The conviction was upheld.
Your Are Correct !
Your Are Incorrect !