About: Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland

An Entity of Type: building, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386, [1961] 3 All ER 523, [1961] UKHL 3 is a House of Lords decision relating to non-insane automatism. The court decided that medical evidence is needed to prove that the defendant was not aware of what they were doing, and if this is available, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that intention was present.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386, [1961] 3 All ER 523, [1961] UKHL 3 is a House of Lords decision relating to non-insane automatism. The court decided that medical evidence is needed to prove that the defendant was not aware of what they were doing, and if this is available, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that intention was present. (en)
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 11396468 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 4499 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1082944510 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:casesCited
  • R v Cottle [1958] NZLR. 999; R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399; R v Charlson [1955] 1 WLR 317; Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462; R v Tolson 23 QBD 168; Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277; R v Podola [1960] 1 QB 325; A-G for South Australia v Brown [1960] AC 432; R v Byrne 2 QB 396; DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479 and others (en)
dbp:citations
  • 1961 (xsd:integer)
dbp:court
  • House of Lords (en)
dbp:dateDecided
  • 1961-10-03 (xsd:date)
dbp:fullName
  • Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (en)
dbp:judges
dbp:keywords
  • Murder; manslaughter; intent; mens rea; automatism (en)
dbp:legislationCited
dbp:name
  • Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (en)
dbp:subsequentActions
  • None (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
gold:hypernym
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386, [1961] 3 All ER 523, [1961] UKHL 3 is a House of Lords decision relating to non-insane automatism. The court decided that medical evidence is needed to prove that the defendant was not aware of what they were doing, and if this is available, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that intention was present. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy