Anatomy of a Crime - AR Flashcards
Elements of a crime?
Actus non facit reum nisi mens rea
A person is not criminally liable by virtue of an act unless he has a guilty mind
S 26A Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008)
A person is said to cause an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
Defence of automatism: Types that have been attempted?
Sinnasamy: Epileptic attack
Kenneth Fook; Quick: Hyperglycaemic reaction of a diabetic
Burgess: Sleepwalking
Hill v Baxter: Stung by bees
AG’s Ref. 1992: Driving without awareness
R v Quick [1973] 3 All ER 347:
Facts + Hypoglycaemia as automatism
Quick was charged with causing actual bodily harm on a patient, and submitted that he was suffering from hypoglycaemia which caused him to act unconsciously as an automation.
Held (Lawton LJ): Malfunctioning of the mind was caused by an external factor and not a disease of the mind, and Quick was entitled to have his defence of automatism.
Self-induced incapacity will not excuse, neither when consequence could have been reasonably foreseen as a result of action or omission (i.e. failing to take food when you’re diabetic)
Burgess:
Sleepwalking
Cannot have a complete defence for sleepwalking as it is not sane automatism; at best you can plead insane automatism. Sleepwalking was an “abnormality due to an internal factor, whether functional or organic, which had manifested itself in violence”. It might also recur, although the possibility of recurring in the form of serious violence is unlikely.
Contrasted with Parks: Sleepwalking will raise a defence of sane automatism and be acquitted
Hill v Baxter (UK):
Stung by bees
Man who became unconscious while driving due to sudden illness should not be made liable
Held sane automatism. In such a state of unconsciousness, he could not be said to be driving (i.e. cannot equate unconsciousness due to a sudden illness with disease of the mind).
AG’s Ref. (No. 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982:
Driving without awareness
D charged with causing death by reckless driving. Provided defence that he was driving in a state of automatism referred to as “driving without awareness” (trance-like state). Acquitted via jury but court was of the opinion that should not rely on defence of automatism.
Held: In a state of driving without awareness, there needs to be a total destruction of voluntary control on D’s part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough. If D is able to steer the vehicle and react and return to full awareness, then there is still voluntary control.
What is the defence of automatism?
YMC: “Automatism refers to the state of defective capacity to control one’s conduct in which the person performs acts that he or she has not willed.” Accused act is not as a result of his conduct but a result of what happens to him.
Removes/negates the presence of a voluntary act, leading to an absence of actus reus and eventual acquittal.
Distinction between sane and insane automatism caused by external and internal factors.
Bratty v AG for NI [1961] 3 All ER 523, HL:
Facts + Automatism Definition
A experienced a terrible feeling whilst driving which compelled him to strangle the deceased to death. Defence argued that A could only be found guilty if PP had proved that A’s acts were conscious and voluntary.
Held: “Nor is an act to be regarded as an involuntary act simply because it is unintentional or its consequences are unforeseen”, and not simply that A does not remember it or could not control his impulse to do it.
Automatism defined as “unconscious involuntary action and it is a defence because the mind does not go with what is being done”.
“…not every involuntary act…leads to a complete acquittal.” E.g. If the drunken man is so drunk that he does not know what he is doing, he has a defence to any charge which needs a specific intent, but he is still liable to be convicted of manslaughter or unlawful wounding for which no specific intent is necessary.
Bratty v AG for NI [1961] 3 All ER 523, HL:
Onus of proving automatism?
On A, established on balance of probabilities.
A to produce at least prima facie evidence to displace presumption of mental capacity.
Akin to insanity and is a fact exclusively within his own knowledge.
Queen v Falconer [1990] HCA 49:
Facts + “Willed” Act
Wife convicted of wilful murder of husband after finding out he had abused daughters sexually, and sexually assaulted the appellant, and reached out to grab her by the hair etc.
Held: Death must be intended consequence when offender does the act which causes the death.
Act must be “willed”; requires consciousness in actor of the nature of the act and a choice to do an act of that nature.
Queen v Falconer [1990] HCA 49:
Presumption?
(Echoes Lord Denning, Bratty v AG of NI)
In absence of contrary evidence, presumed that act done by a person apparently conscious is willed or done voluntarily.
To rebut this presumption, there must be reason to believe that the actor was unable to control his actions.
Bratty v AG for NI [1961] 3 All ER 523, HL:
Presumption?
State is entitled to rely on the presumption that every man has sufficient mental capacity to be responsible for his crimes.
Provisional presumption, and does not put the legal burden on the defence in the same way as presumption of sanity does.
Unless defence adduces evidence to displace presumption, PP can discharge the burden of proving that the act was voluntary.
PP v Kenneth Fook Mun Lee [2002] 2 MLJ 563:
Facts + Automatism Definition
Accused charged with murder of the deceased and claimed the defence of automatism as he had a hypoglycaemic attack.
Held (Augustine Paul J): Automatism refers to a state of defective consciousness in which a person performs unwilled acts.
Here, no evidence as to external causal factors and it was prone to recur – onus on Accused to prove state of mind at time of commission of act.
Bratty v AG for NI [1961] 3 All ER 523, HL:
Insane v Non-insane Automatism?
Insane automatism (disease of the mind): - R v Quick: Primary cause of abnormality is internal to the accused and prone to recur.
Non-insane automatism: Abnormality caused by a factor external to the accused.
- I.e. blow to the head, alcohol or drugs.
Police v Bannin:
Insane v Non-insane Automatism?
Insane automatism:
Person is likely to be a continuing danger to the community, and there is a high risk that history will be repeated when presented with the same circumstances.
- Condition classified as unsoundness of mind under s 84 PC.
- As problem is internal, some form of treatment or oversight is warranted to protect the community notwithstanding the absence of fault (i.e. placement in mental institution).
Non-insane automatism:
Caused by extraordinary external cause, and the external event is unlikely to be repeated.
Police v Bannin:
Importance of distinction between insane and non-insane automatism?
Will determine onus of proof:
“That distinction affects only the onus of proof and the ultimate disposition of the case”
- For example, in sane automatism such as epilepsy, the onus will be on the prosecution to exclude the alleged incapacity.
- In insane automatism, according to s84 PC, the burden is on accused to establish his condition of mind at the time of the commission of the offence, and the prosecution is entitled to adduce evidence in rebuttal.
