## Facts

- Bailey was a diabetic who controlled his condition with self-administered insulin.
- He failed to eat after an insulin injection, resulting in hypoglycemia.
- In a hypoglycemic state, Bailey assaulted another individual.
- Bailey had previous episodes of hypoglycemia and was aware of the risks of failing to eat after taking insulin.
- The court considered if Bailey’s omission, given his experience and knowledge, amounted to recklessness and whether the automatism defence was available.
- Bailey’s situation was distinguished from cases where automatism was caused solely by medical or mental factors.

## Issues

1. Whether Bailey’s self-induced automatism, stemming from voluntarily failing to eat after insulin administration, excused his actions or amounted to recklessness.
2. Whether the objective recklessness standard from Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396, or a combined subjective-objective approach, was relevant.
3. Whether Bailey's awareness of his condition’s risks established recklessness.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal determined that self-induced automatism from Bailey’s voluntary omission did not excuse his conduct and could constitute recklessness.
- The court affirmed that the objective test for recklessness from Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 applied, focusing on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk.
- Bailey’s case was distinguished from R v Quick [1973] QB 910 (external causes) and R v Stephenson [1979] QB 695 (mental illness affecting risk appreciation), highlighting Bailey’s relevant knowledge.
- Liability was upheld where a defendant’s voluntary conduct led to a foreseeable and unjustified risk resulting in a loss of control.

## Legal Principles

- Recklessness involves conscious disregard of unreasonable and serious risks.
- The standard for recklessness is objective: whether a reasonable person would foresee the risk, as outlined in Cunningham.
- Self-induced automatism from voluntary actions does not automatically relieve liability and may itself be reckless.
- Automatism due to medical conditions limits liability only if not self-induced or if the risk was not reasonably foreseeable.

## Conclusion

Bailey v R [1983] 1 WLR 760 establishes that self-induced automatism arising from voluntary omission, where risks are known, may constitute recklessness under an objective standard and does not excuse liability for the resulting foreseeable harm.
