In R v. Bailey, when is self-induced non-insane automatism not a defense?

In the context of R v. Bailey, self-induced non-insane automatism is not a valid defense if the prosecution can prove that the accused was aware of the risks associated with their actions, specifically those that led to the state of automatism. This case highlights the legal framework surrounding the use of automatism as a defense in criminal cases, particularly when it stems from intoxication.

When individuals engage in behavior that leads to intoxication, they are typically assumed to take personal responsibility for the consequences that arise from their actions. If they had awareness of the potential risks or dangers of their conduct and chose to proceed regardless, the law generally holds them accountable for any subsequent actions taken while in an automatic state, such as causing harm to another person.

This reasoning aligns with the principle that individuals should not be able to evade responsibility for actions resulting from their own volitional conduct, further emphasizing the importance of personal accountability in criminal law.