R v Bailey is a 1983 decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales considering criminal responsibility as to non-insane automatism. The broad questions addressed were whether a hampered state of mind, which the accused may have a legal and moral duty to lessen or avoid, gave him a legal excuse for his actions; and whether as to any incapacity there was strong countering evidence (evidence of a largely sound mind at the time) on the facts involved. The court ruled that the jury had been misdirected as to the effect of a defendant's mental state on his criminal liability. However, Bailey's defence had not been supported by sufficient evidence to support an acquittal and his appeal was dismissed.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - R v Bailey is a 1983 decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales considering criminal responsibility as to non-insane automatism. The broad questions addressed were whether a hampered state of mind, which the accused may have a legal and moral duty to lessen or avoid, gave him a legal excuse for his actions; and whether as to any incapacity there was strong countering evidence (evidence of a largely sound mind at the time) on the facts involved. The court ruled that the jury had been misdirected as to the effect of a defendant's mental state on his criminal liability. However, Bailey's defence had not been supported by sufficient evidence to support an acquittal and his appeal was dismissed. (en)
|
name
| |
foaf:depiction
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
sameAs
| |
subsequent actions
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
citations
| - [1983] EWCA Crim 2; 1 WLR 760; 2 All ER 503; 77 Cr App R 76 (en)
|
court
| |
full name
| - Regina v John Graham Bailey (en)
|
judges
| - Griffiths, LJ, Peter Pain, J, and Stuart-Smith, J. (en)
|
keywords
| - (en)
- wounding, automatism, intent, diabetes, self-induced automatism or aggression (en)
|
has abstract
| - R v Bailey is a 1983 decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales considering criminal responsibility as to non-insane automatism. The broad questions addressed were whether a hampered state of mind, which the accused may have a legal and moral duty to lessen or avoid, gave him a legal excuse for his actions; and whether as to any incapacity there was strong countering evidence (evidence of a largely sound mind at the time) on the facts involved. The court ruled that the jury had been misdirected as to the effect of a defendant's mental state on his criminal liability. However, Bailey's defence had not been supported by sufficient evidence to support an acquittal and his appeal was dismissed. (en)
|
Cases cited
| - DPP v. Majewski 62 Cr. App. E. 262 (en)
- Lipman 55 Cr. App. R. 600 (en)
- R. v. Quick 57 Cr. App. R. 722 (en)
|
date decided
| |
Legislation cited
| |
prior actions
| |
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |