Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386. Failure to discharge onus of proof in relation to defence of automatism. Facts. The appellant (B) was convicted of the murder of an 18-year-old girl. In his statement to the police, he said that he had been overcome with a “terrible … See more The appellant (B) was convicted of the murder of an 18-year-old girl. In his statement to the police, he said that he had been overcome with a “terrible feeling” and a “sort of … See more The trial judge was only under a duty to leave the issue of automatism to the jury where the defence had left a proper evidential foundation … See more On Appeal to the House of Lords, B argued that the trial judge was wrong to dismiss the automatism defence. It was argued that the burden of proof was on the Crown to prove that (i) the acts were conscious and … See more Web11 Bratty [1963] AC 386, 410; Aitken [1992] 1 WLR 1006, 1016G-1017A. intoxication; or, (2) D committed the AR because of voluntary intoxication.12 This is called Majewski rule. In contrast, D can rely on the fact of being voluntarily intoxicated to avoid liability
THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE BURDEN OF PROOF - JSTOR
Web...Taimbari Kauri (1987) (Unnumbered and Unreported Judgment of the National Court (Kidu CJ) dated 25 June 1987), R v Brigitta Asamakan [1964] PNGLR 193, R v Nicholas Lagit (1961) No207, Bratty v Attorney–General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 referred to The defence of insanity is provide..... WebBRATTY v A-G FOR NORTHERN IRELAND [1963] AC 386 (HL) Facts D strangled a girl and was charged with her murder. There was evidence that he might have been … richard brand afs
Actus Reus Flashcards Quizlet
WebWhere a disease of the body affects the mind resulting in violence and is likely to recur, it will be classed as insanity, thus enabling the courts to order the detention of the defendant in society's interest. See: Bratty [1963] AC 386. Web[1935] AC 462; it applies whatever the nature of the defence: see Mancini v DPP; Bratty v A-G of Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386; R v Dunbar [1958] 1 QB 1; R v Gill [1963] 2 All ER 688. But not in case of insanity: Sodeman v R [1936] 2 All ER 1138 or in case of statutory exceptions: R v Garr-Briant [1943] KB 607. [1970] AC 618. WebA-G For NI. By definition, automatism is where an external force takes control over the accused causing them to perform certain actions; however the instances where automatism is caused by internal factors and more often than not is associated with insanity. There are numerous examples in cases such as that of Bratty v A-G for NI [1963] AC 386 ... red kitchen wall decor ideas