1B - Automatism Flashcards
What is automatism?
If the D is (legally) sane but is unable to control his actions the defence is called automatism
Who raises the defence?
Up to the D and medical evidence may be required. Once it has been proven, the prosecution must be disproved
Is it a complete or incomplete defence?
It is a complete defence
If its successful, the D will be acquitted
Examples of loss of physical control
- sneezing/sneezing fit
- reflex action
- muscle spasm caused by cramps
- attack by a swarm of bees
Examples of a mind being affected by the cause
- concussion
- a hypnotic trance
- the effect of a drug
- the effect of an anaesthetic
What offences can automatism be used a defence for?
There is a lack of actus reus as the AR normally has to be voluntary
Automatism can be used as a defence to all crimes, including those of strict liability
D is also denying the MR as they had no intention to act as they did
There are 3 elements to the defence?
- D is not in control and therefore there is an involuntary act
- The loss of control was due to an external factor/cause
- There was a total loss of voluntary control
Element 1: Bratty v AG for NI
Lord Denning said there must be credible evidence of an external factor that has caused D’s involuntary actions and that it is unlikely to reoccur and manifest itself in violence
Element 2
The cause of automatism must be external
Quick / Hennessy / Hill v Baxter / R v T
Element 3
AG’s Ref no.2 1992 shows that reduced or partial control of one’s actions is not sufficient to constitute automatism
Self-induced automatism is concerned with what?
the D knowing their conduct is likely to bring about an automatic state
eg. diabetic failing to eat after taking insulin or D drinking after taking medication for which he has been told not to
Bailey
CoA rules on self-induced automatism: specific intent crime
When the D has committed a specific intent crime self-induced automatism can be a defence as they lack the mens rea
CoA rules on self-induced automatism: basic intent crime
When the D has committed a basic intent crime the D can use the defence only where they don’t know their actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state in whih they commit an offence
Hardie
CoA rules on self-induced automatism: when can the defence not be used?
If the D knew there was a risk of getting into such a condition. If the D knew the risk, then they would be considered reckless
CoA rules on self-induced automatism: where the self induced state is caused by drink or illegal drugs?
The D cannot use the defence (DPP v Majewski - becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct), as seen in Coley
