Web(i) Alienation of reason (see Cardle v Mulrainey 1992 SLT 1152, which shows if the alienation or loss of control is not total this will rule out the defence and prevent acquittal on that ground). (ii) Caused by an external factor (see Finegan v Heywood 2000 JC 444, below) (iii) Not self-induced (see Brennan v HM Adv 1977 JC 38 below) WebJan 21, 2024 · Sleepwalking is most often used as a defence to violent or sexual offences (often referred to as ‘Sexsomnia’) and is a legitimate defence to both. It falls under the defence of automatism, which is further broken into two types. Which type of automatism will depend on the cause: internal (insane automatism) or external (simple automatism).
13 Defences - Lecture notes 27-28 - Automatism Defence for
WebMar 21, 2000 · Finegan v Heywood. Statutory offence—Road Traffic Acts—Automatism—Sleepwalking—Pannel taking friend's motor car without permission … WebFinegan v Heywood (2000) HCJ, Fisher v Bell (1961) 1 QB 394, Floyd v DPP (2000) Crim LR 411, 436, 437, Gamble v NCB (1959) 1 QB 11, 138, 574, 575, Gammon v Attorney- General for Hong Kong (1984) 2 All ER 503, 164, Gardner v Akeroyd (1952) 2 All ER 306, Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134, 88, 90, highest typing speed in world
Criminal Law Flashcards Quizlet
WebStudy with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Smith v Donnelly 2002 JC 65., Harris v HM Adv 2010 JC 245, Bowes v McGowan 2010 JC 297 and more. WebRule followed in Finegan v Heywood (2000) JC 444. o Prescribed drugs: Ebsworth v HMA 1992 SLT 1161. o Prescribed drugs for the purpose of treating medical conditions like Diabetes: Carmichael v Boyle 1985 SLT 399. MacLeod v Mathieson 1993 SCCR 489: For diabetes, a hypo attack must be unforseeable to give rise to a successful defence. WebFinegan v Heywood 2000 - accused went out drinking, returned home and fell asleep, was woken up at wheel of car by police, convicted as was partly self-induced as had done … highest typing speed in english