R v Bailey
Self induced automatism is a defence to specific intent offences, and to basic intent offences unless the defendant was reckless in bringing it about.
Facts
Mr Bailey, a diabetic, went to see a man who was having a relationship with his former girlfriend. He drank some sugar and water, but did not eat anything, and then hit the man on the head with an iron bar. He claimed that he had been in a state of automatism caused by hypoglycaemia, because he had not eaten after taking insulin. He was convicted of wounding with intent and of unlawful wounding.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had misdirected the jury, but upheld the conviction because there was no evidential basis for the defence. Griffiths LJ said that self induced automatism, other than that caused by alcohol or dangerous drugs, may be a defence to a crime of basic intent, unless the prosecution proves that the defendant knew that his actions or inactions were likely to make him aggressive, unpredictable or uncontrolled with the result that he might endanger others and he persisted in his action or inaction. It is common knowledge that taking alcohol or drugs can lead to unpredictable behaviour, but not necessarily that failing to eat after taking insulin can do so.
Related cases on defences: insanity, automatism and intoxication
- Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
- DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443
- Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
- M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200
- R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92
- R v Coley; R v McGhee; R v Harris [2013] EWCA Crim 223
- R v Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
