Automatism Flashcards
define automatism (non-insane automatism)
automatism is a complete defense where the D proves that the body acted without any control by the mind due to an external factor
the cause of the automatism must be external.
what are examples of external causes?
- blow to head
- attack by swarm of bees
- sneezing
- effect of a drug
concept of no fault when d was in an automatic state through external cause was approved in what case?
Hill v Baxter
which case accepted that exceptional stress or PTSD can be an external factor which may cause automatism?
R v T
D was raped, later committed robbery, assault, judge allowed defense to be considered but she was convicted
what case held that there must be ‘total destruction of voluntary control’
Attorney-General’s Reference (1993)
reduced or partial control over one’s actions is not sufficient to constitute automatism.
what is self-induced automatism?
where D knows that their conduct is likely to bring about automatic state e.g. diabetic who knows risk of not eating after insulin
where did the law on self-induced automatism come from?
R v Bailey (1983) (diabetes)
set out difference between how it applies to specific intent offences and basic intent offences.
what are specific intent offences?
offences for which the mens rea required is specific intent. e.g. murder
can self induced automatism be a defense for specific intent offences?
can be a defense as D lacks required men’s rea for the offence.
what are basic intent offences?
offences where recklessness is sufficient for mens rea e.g. assault, battery, mansalughter
what does law in Bailey state about basic intent offences?
1) if D was reckless in getting into state, no defence
2) where state is caused by drink or illegal drugs, other substances, D cannot use defense because R v Majewski held that its a reckless course of conduct
3) where D does not know their actions will lead to self induced automatic state, they have not been reckless and can use automatism.
2) where state is caused by drink or illegal drugs, other substances, D cannot use defense because R v Majewski held that its a reckless course of conduct
shown in Coley (taking cannabis led him to attack his neighbour)
3) where D does not know their actions will lead to self induced automatic state, they have not been reckless and can use automatism.
can be seen in R v Hardie (taken drugs he believed wold calm him down, led him to set fire to flat)
