1B.5.2 Automatism Flashcards
Insane automatism
The cause of the automatism is a disease of the mind within the M’Naghten Rules.
The defence is insanity and the verdict is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’.
Non-insane automatism
The cause of the lack of control is external.
Where such a defence succeeds, it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guilty.
Overlap between insanity and automatism
It will have to be decided whether the defendant’s condition is due to a mental illness or due to external factors.
The courts have decided that those suffering from any mental or physical illness which affects their mind amounts to insanity.
- This means that the defence of non-insane automatism has been removed from people as epileptics and diabetics. As seen in the case of R v Quick (1973).
Definition of automatism
- As seen in the case of Bratty
- “An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflect action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not a conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep-walking”.
Is automatism a complete or partial defence?
A full defence - if successful, the D will be acquitted.
Cause of non-insane automatism
It must be an external cause (Quick (1973)).
Examples of external causes:
- the effect of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as seen in R v T (1990)
- the effect of taking a drug, which might raise issues of self-induced automatism.
Hill v Baxter (1958)
The defendant drove through a halt sign without stopping and collided with another car. He was charged with dangerous driving but there was little evidence to support a defence of automatism.
However, it was stated a person should not be made liable where, through no fault of his own, he becomes unconscious when driving, for example, a person who has been struck by a stone, overcome by a sudden illness or attacked by a swarm of bees.
Loss of voluntary control with non-insane automatism
There has to be a total loss of voluntary control, as set out in A-G Ref (No.2 of 1992)(1993). A reduced or partial control of one’s actions is not sufficient to amount to automatism.
Self-induced automatism
Where the defendant knows that their conduct is unlikely to bring on an automatic state.
Examples include:
- a diabetic, who knows the risk of failing to eat after taking insulin such as R v Quick (1973).
- a person who drinks alcohol after taking medication when they have been told by their doctor not to do so.
What offences can automatism be a defence for?
All crimes - including those of strict liability.
Examples of a loss of physical control
- sneezing
- reflex action
- muscle spasm caused by cramps
- attack by a swarm of bees
Clarke (2009)
Facts: Diabetic killed a child while driving. D realised he was going to hypoglycaemia and should have stopped and therefore reckless.
Automatism flow chart
