6. Defences Involving State of Mind - Automatism Flashcards
Describe Automatism?
Automatism can best be described as a state of total blackout, during which a
person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.
In relation to automatism, R v Cottle addresses the example of actions with conscious volition. What was held?
Must Know Case Law
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it - a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.
In relation to automatism, R v Bratty addresses the example of an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind. What did the court find?
The Court found this to be such as a spasm, a reflex action or a
convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking.
Are you culpable where you are in a state of automatism?
Actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common law rule is that there is no criminal liability for such conduct.
What may cause automatism?
Apart from the concussion and sleepwalking referred to in Bratty,
automatism may be caused by a brain tumour, epilepsy, arteriosclerosis which can cause temporary unconsciousness by interfering with the supply of blood to the brain) or by consumption of alcohol or drugs.
Where automatism is brought about by a voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs the court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or lacking intention. What have such statements been called?
Must Know
Such statements have been called “one of the first refuges of a guilty conscience and a popular excuse”.
What is sane automatism a result of?
Must Know
The result of somnambulism (sleepwalking), a blow to the
head or the effects of drugs
What is insane automatism the result of?
Must Know
The result of a mental disease.
Certain types of automatism are treated by the law as cases of insanity. What are the implications?
The legal test of insanity, as formulated in s23 of the Crimes Act 1961, applies. Whether or not a case of automatism is to be treated as such depends on the presence or absence of a disease of the mind.
What are the implications, where sane automatism is in operation?
If there is no question of disease of the mind, a successful plea of automatism negates intent as well as responsibility for the actus reus, and the result is an unqualified acquittal.
In relation to automatism induced by drinks or drugs, what did the court find in Keech v Pratt?
The Court in Keech v Pratt29 found that a defendant could avoid liability for the offence if he could prove on the balance of probabilities that his state of excess alcohol was without fault by automatism or otherwise.
Certain offences require little or no intent. What are the implications?
Must Know
Driving with an excess breath alcohol content. Therefore for a defence to succeed on this charge a person must prove a total absence of fault. In other words, the person drove without conscious appreciation of the fact of driving, or of the fact of intoxication.
Certain offences require intent. What are the implications?
Must Know
Any offence that has intent as an element of the offence. An example is assault which requires intent (to apply force to another person).
How is the defence of automatism applied in New Zealand courts?
New Zealand has adopted the principle that self-induced intoxication can lead to a defence of automatism, if the evidence is sufficiently strong to support the defence.
They are likely to disallow the defence where the state of
mind is obviously self-induced, the person is blameworthy, and the consequences could have been expected.
