A-Level LAW A2 (UNIT 3 DEFENCES) Flashcards on A2 Law: Cases - Defence of Automatism , created by Jess Hughes on 29/06/2016.
Close
Case Outcome: Lord Denning summary of 'Automatism' -
Bratty (1963)
Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Hill v Baxter (1958)
Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Hill v Baxter (1958)
Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Watmore v Jenkins (1962)
Case Outcome : Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Watmore v Jenkins (1962)
Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Broome v Perkins (1987)
Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Broome v Perkins (1987)
Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
A-G's Reference No 2 of 1992 (1993)
Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
A-G's Reference No 2 of 1992 (1993)
Case Facts: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Whoolley (1997)
Case Outcome: Supporting evidence is needed to raise the defence + automatism must be caused by an external factor -
Whoolley (1997)
Case Outcome: Sleepwalking (MR) -
Burgess (1991)
Case Outcome: A Dissociate State (MR) -
R v T (1990)
Case Outcome: A Dissociate State (MR) -
Narborough (2004)
Case Facts: Automatism must not be self-induced -
Bailey (1983)
Case Outcome: Automatism must not be self-induced -
Bailey (1983)
Case Facts: Automatism must not be self-induced -
R v C (2007); Clarke (2009)
Case Outcome: Automatism must not be self-induced -
R v C (2007); Clarke (2009)
Case Outcome: Where the defendant's automatism was caused by drink/drugs, then the defence of intoxication -
Lipman (1970)
