Criminal Law

Incapacity Cases

R v Bailey [1983] 1 W.L.R. 760

Key Point

• Where D committed a crime after become intoxicated from a drug is that non-dangerous, D could still be guilty (and without the benefit of the defence of automatism) if he had foreseen a risk of the drug causing aggressive, unpredictable and uncontrolled behaviour.

Facts

• D was a diabetic, he failed to take sufficient food after injecting insulin and inflicted grievous bodily harm in a state of hypoglycaemia.
• D sought to raise defence of automatism to charges under s18 (wounding with intent) and s20 (wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm) OAPA.
• The recorder directed the jury that automatism was no defence to those charges as it was self-induced.