Automatic Behaviour Flashcards
Hugh Mitchell 1856
Women was holding a baby try to protect it form the assault she squeezed a child, which later died. The court held that Mr Mitchell was culpable for death of the baby, it happened because of his attack. The women was an ‘innocent agent’.
Hogg v Macpherson 1928
glust of wind
HMA v Raiker 1989
Prisoner stated that he took the part in riot only because he was threatened with a knife and had been given a drug by force. Then he assaulted. The judge directed the jury that where a person acts out of genuine fear of life-threatening violence, or under hypnosis or the influence of a drug administered without his consent which puts his will under the control of another, he lacks mens rea.
Jessop v Johnstone 1991
A schoolteacher charged with assaulting a pupil (punching). he was taken by surprise and react by punching him on his stomach and back (natural reflex). It was held that this was not a case of an instinctive reflex reaction to violence, as where a person who is suddenly attacked turns round sharply and comes in contact with his assailant, but was a case of deliberately striking the complainer more than once, and that the sheriff was not entitled to treat is as he did, and appeal allowed and case remitted to the sheriff with a direction to convict (under provocation if appropriate)
Brennan v HMA 1977
The man was charged with the murder of his father by stabbing him with a knife. He voluntary intoxicated himself with dink and drugs LSD. (playing music, argument escalated). State of intoxication did not entitle the jury to return a verdict of culpable homicide. Appeal. Bench 7 judges - in the law of Scotland a person who voluntarily and deliberately consumes drink/drugs , efects fully foreseen - he cannot rely on the special defence of insanity; Insanity requires proof of total alienation of reason in relation to the act charged as the result of mental illness, mental disease or defect or unsoundness of mind. Diminished responsibility no -(to use establish sth less than total elienation of reason will suffice. Appeal refused
HMA v Cunningham 1963
(internal/external factor) in this case the court did not distinguish between internal/external factors and excluded a defence if ‘insanity’ (now mental disorder) was not proved.Epileptic fugue - loss of awareness of their identity
Not a competent special defence and relevant only as a mitigating factor when deciding sentence
Any temporary mental dissociation short of insanity could not provide a defence (bench). leading case of automatism before Ross v HMA. Overruled HMA v Ritchie 1926 - mitigation. Cunningham also illustrates the general difficulty when statutory offences are charged - remember strict liability may apply depending on the wording of the statute. However, Ritchie was more favourable regarded in Ross v HMA
HMA v Ritchie 1926
(one judge) Mr Ritchie was driving around in his car. And he hit a pedestrian who died. He claimed that he become overcome (toxic exhaustive factors) and whils suffering from total alienation of reason, he killed him. The court accepted the plea and he was aquitted.
Ross v HMA 1991
Mr Ross was in pub. He drunk small quantity of beer, which did not influence him. He did not intoxicate himself. However, somebody put some drugs (LSD and other) to his drink, without him knowing about it. Mr Ross became incredibly violent. He assaulted several people and was convicted. He appealed. It was held that to displace the presumption of mens rea the accused must prove three/four things: 1. total alienation of reason followed leading to a total loss of self-control. 2. the external factor/s was/were not self-induced 3.the external factor/s was/were not foreseeable. Cunningham overruled in part.
Sorley v HMA 1992
The man went for drinking with his friend, who put some drugs to his drink. He did not know about it. He became violent. He was charged and convicted of breach of peace (Cunningham). He appeal based on Ross case. It was held that he satisfy to criteria from Ross case however the third one was not satisfied. Tight down criteria? (to stop ppl using defence). Prove of automatism defence -accused - importance of expert evidence-state of mind.
Cardle v Mulrainey 1992
The man was charged with series of offences ( Road Traffic Act 1988, theft), he said that somebody put amphetamine in to his can of drink. The sheriff acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed. It was held that two criteria of the Ross case where met. The accused actually knew what he was doing, but he was unable to stop himself. So he did not fulfill first criterion (Brennab v HMA 1977 applied)
Ebsworth v HMA 1992
Accused had prescribed painkillers for the injury. He took too many of them. And assaulted the victim. The court held that his actions were reckless as he voluntarily took an excessive amount of legally prescribed drugs, the consequences of which were foreseeable. However the court also held that he would taken the drugs as prescribed then any resulting automatism would actually be unforeseeable. Therefore defence of automatism would have been available.
Carrington v HMA 1994
The accused charged with rape, and 7 years imprisonment. Evidence which showed that at the time of the offences he was suffering from total alienation. Drug no longer prescribed (before offemce). bizzare side effect now recognised. Appeal refused. whether the appellant took the drug at the material time or that he had suffered a total alienation of reason amounting to a complete loss of control
Finegan v Heywood 1994
Accused drunk 6 pints of beer, and then went sleep. After drove a car, during sleepwalking. There is total alienation with reason leading to lack of control. The court held that Finegan knew that drinking bring on him wanderings. Therefore his actions did not meet the requirements of the second and third part of Ross test.
Simon Fraser 1878
Authority for proposition that an act committed by a person while is asleep at the time, is not criminal, there is no consciousness. In this case, the accused having given an undertaking that none but himself would in future sleep alone in the room he might occupy, Crown considered it satisfactory, was dismissed form the bar.
Carmichael v Boyle 1985
The accused was diabetic and had low intelligence. he came violence after forgetting to eat. However he took his medication. The appeal court found him guilty. Pre-Ross case.
