Self-induced automatism

Overview

Where the defendant brought the state about: never a bar to a specific intent charge, but a basic intent charge turns on the Bailey question of whether the defendant was reckless in getting into that state.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   What is self-induced automatism?

   Model answer

   Self-induced automatism arises where the defendant is responsible for the state of automatism. Taking drink or drugs, or failing to eat after insulin, are common examples.

2. 2

   Is self-induced automatism a defence to a crime of specific intent?

   Model answer

   Self-induced automatism can be a defence to a crime of specific intent. The state of automatism prevents the formation of that intent.

3. 3

   Is self-induced automatism a defence to a crime of basic intent?

   Model answer

   Self-induced automatism is generally no defence to a crime of basic intent. Becoming automatous through drink or dangerous drugs is itself reckless conduct.

4. 4

   Which case sets out the rules on self-induced automatism?

   Model answer

   R v Bailey [1983] set out the modern approach to self-induced automatism. A diabetic who failed to eat after taking insulin could rely on the defence unless he had been reckless.

5. 5

   What did R v Bailey [1983] decide about recklessness?

   Model answer

   R v Bailey [1983] held that the defence fails where the defendant appreciated the risk of becoming aggressive or uncontrolled. Awareness of the risk supplies the fault for a basic intent offence.

6. 6

   How are non-dangerous drugs treated?

   Model answer

   R v Hardie [1985] held that taking a drug not known to cause unpredictable behaviour is not necessarily reckless. Valium taken to calm the nerves fell into that category.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.