Welcome

Bailey v R [1983] 1 WLR 760

ResourcesBailey v R [1983] 1 WLR 760

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.
  • 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.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.