Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/R_v_Burgess> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 32 of
32
with 100 items per page.
- R_v_Burgess abstract "R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92 is a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that found sleepwalking as insane automatism. In a previous decision, Burgess was found not guilty by reason of insanity because his case fell under the M'Naghten Rules. Burgess appealed his previous verdict on the grounds he was not guilty due to automatism because he did not have the mens rea to make him guilty. However, the court ruled that sleepwalking was considered insane automatism and Burgess' appeal was denied.".
- R_v_Burgess wikiPageID "26502869".
- R_v_Burgess wikiPageRevisionID "565556200".
- R_v_Burgess casesCited "Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386".
- R_v_Burgess casesCited "Rabey v. The Queen [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513, 519, 520".
- R_v_Burgess casesCited "Reg. v. Kemp [1957] 1 Q.B. 399, 407".
- R_v_Burgess casesCited "Reg. v. Parks 56 C.C.C. 449".
- R_v_Burgess casesCited "Reg. v. Sullivan [1984] A.C. 156".
- R_v_Burgess citations "2".
- R_v_Burgess citations "All ER 769".
- R_v_Burgess citations "WLR 1206".
- R_v_Burgess court "Court of Appeal".
- R_v_Burgess dateDecided "1991-03-27".
- R_v_Burgess fullName "Regina v Burgess".
- R_v_Burgess hasPhotoCollection R_v_Burgess.
- R_v_Burgess judges "Lord Lane CJ, Roch and Morland".
- R_v_Burgess keywords "sleepwalking, violence, parasomnia".
- R_v_Burgess legislationCited Trial_of_Lunatics_Act_1883.
- R_v_Burgess legislationCited "M'Naghten Rules 10 Cl. & Fin. 200".
- R_v_Burgess name "R v Burgess".
- R_v_Burgess subsequentActions "None".
- R_v_Burgess subject Category:1991_in_case_law.
- R_v_Burgess subject Category:1991_in_the_United_Kingdom.
- R_v_Burgess subject Category:Court_of_Appeal_of_England_and_Wales_cases.
- R_v_Burgess subject Category:English_criminal_case_law.
- R_v_Burgess comment "R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92 is a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that found sleepwalking as insane automatism. In a previous decision, Burgess was found not guilty by reason of insanity because his case fell under the M'Naghten Rules. Burgess appealed his previous verdict on the grounds he was not guilty due to automatism because he did not have the mens rea to make him guilty.".
- R_v_Burgess label "R v Burgess".
- R_v_Burgess sameAs m.0bhbnwl.
- R_v_Burgess sameAs Q7278253.
- R_v_Burgess sameAs Q7278253.
- R_v_Burgess wasDerivedFrom R_v_Burgess?oldid=565556200.
- R_v_Burgess isPrimaryTopicOf R_v_Burgess.