Automatism Flashcards
What is the definition and where from?
Definition of Automatism is derived from Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1961) as:
“an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, 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 sleep-walking.”
The definition covers two types, what are they?
Definition covers two types:
Non-insane Automatism – where the cause is an external one.
Insane Automatism – where the cause of the automatism is a disease of the mind within the M’Naghten rules (Defence of Insanity).
What does involuntary act mean?
The basic requirement for criminal liability is that the actus reus of an offence must have been committed voluntarily.
Therefore, defendants will have a complete defence if they can show that, at the time of the alleged offence, they had completely lost control of their bodily movements, rendering their conduct involuntary.
Will the D have the necessary mens rea for those which aren’t strict liability?
In addition to that, the defendant will not have the necessary mens rea under the circumstances either, for those offences which aren’t strict.
Give a case for voluntary act.
Hill v Baxter. NO BEES!
It has also been accepted that exceptional stress or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be an external factor which may cause automatism.
R v T [1990]
Reduced or partial control of one’s actions is not sufficient to constitute non-insane automatism, there conduct must be completely involuntary.
Broome v Perkins [1987]
A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1993]
Held: The defence of automatism should not have been left to the jury and that the state described as “driving without awareness” was not capable of founding a defence of automatism.
If the automatism is self-induced will the defence stand?
The defence of automatism will not be available if the automatism was caused by the accused’s own fault.
The the automatism is by drinking, will it stand?
Where someone loses control of their actions through drinking too much alcohol, or taking illegal drugs, the defence will be unavailable, for obvious policy reasons.
Where the accused brings about the automatism in some other way, the availability of the defence will depend on…
…whether they knew there was a risk of getting into such a state.
Explain how R v Bailey relates to self-induced.
The defendant was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin to control the diabetes. Self-induced.
The test from Balley is?
Although the appeal was dismissed in Bailey, the Court of Appeal set out the rules on self-induced automatism.
The ruling in Bailey states that if the crime is one of specific intent, the defence of automatism, where it has been self-induced, will reduce the crime to one of basic intent, e.g. S. 18 OAPA 1861 to a S. 20 OAPA 1861.
If the offence charged is one of basic intent the prosecution will have to prove the necessary element of recklessness for the offence the defendant has been charged with.
Where the self-induced automatic state is caused through drink or illegal drugs, or some other form of intoxicating substance can automatism be used? What case is this from?
NOPE- This is due to the ruling in DDP v Majewski [1976] which decided that becoming involuntary intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct.
Where the defendant does not know that his actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state in which he may commit an offence, he has not been reckless and can use the defence of automatism. Case?
R v Hardie [1984]
