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 partial 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?
Automatism can be used as a defence to all crimes, including those of strict liability
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 - D is not in control and therefore there is an involuntary act
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 loss of control was due to an external factor/cause
The cause of automatism must be external
Quick / Hennessy / Hill v Baxter / R v T
Element 3 - There was a total loss of voluntary control
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?
D knowing their conduct is likely to bring about an automatic state
eg. D drinking after taking medication for which he has been told not to
R v Bailey
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
self-induced automatism: basic intent crime
For a basic intent crime D only have a defence if they were not aware that the self induced automatism would bring a state where they would commit a crime
R v Hardie
when can the defence of self induced automatism 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
where the self induced state is caused by drink or illegal drugs?
COA - The D cannot use the defence, becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct, as seen in R v Coley
