| dbo: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)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 7492 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:casesCited
|
- 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)
|
| dbp:citations
|
- [1983] EWCA Crim 2; 1 WLR 760; 2 All ER 503; 77 Cr App R 76 (en)
|
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:fullName
|
- Regina v John Graham Bailey (en)
|
| dbp:judges
|
- Griffiths, LJ, Peter Pain, J, and Stuart-Smith, J. (en)
|
| dbp:keywords
|
- (en)
- wounding, automatism, intent, diabetes, self-induced automatism or aggression (en)
|
| dbp:legislationCited
| |
| dbp:name
| |
| dbp:priorActions
|
- 0001-10-14 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:subsequentActions
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| 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)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
