Automatisim

Question 1

1. The Defence of (Non Insane) Automatism may apply…

Answer 1

The Defence of (Non Insane) Automatism may apply where there is an involuntary action, a mental capacity defence. It is a full defence. The burden of proving automatism is on the defence, who must prove it on the balance of probabilities.

Question 2

2. Automatism was defined in…

Answer 2

Automatism was defined in Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland as:

‘an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion…….not conscious of what he is doing……..suffering from concussion’.

Question 3

3. Automatism – known as non-insane automatism- requires an…

Answer 3

Automatism – known as non-insane automatism- requires an external cause. It occurs where the Actus Reus is not voluntary due to an external cause such as those listed in Bratty, plus sneezing, hypnotism, a blow to the head, attack by a swarm of bees and post traumatic stress disorder, many of which were set out in Hill v Baxter.

Question 4

4. Being diabetic, but not…

Answer 4

Being diabetic, but not eating properly, is an external cause and is automatism not insanity, (Quick).

Here…

Question 5

5. Self induced automatism, where the defendant’s…

Answer 5

Self induced automatism, where the defendant’s conduct brings on an automatic state, applies differently to offences of specific and basic intent, (Bailey).

Question 6

6. If the offence is one of Specific Intent…

Answer 6

If the offence is one of Specific Intent, such as murder, S.18 OAPA 1861, theft, robbery and burglary, then self induced automatism can be a defence, even when the defendant knows of the risk of bringing on an automatic state.

Question 7

If the offence is one of Basic Intent, such as…

Answer 7

If the offence is one of Basic Intent, such as assault, battery, S.47 and S.20 OAPA 1861 and involuntary manslaughter, then self induced automatism cannot be a defence if they know of the risk of bringing on an automatic state, because this is recklessness, (Bailey), but it can be a defence if they do not know the risk, (Hardie).

Here…

Question 8

8. To Conclude…

Answer 8

To conclude, D will be found not guilty due to automatism, which is a full defence.