Automatism Flashcards
Describe automatic? (total blackout)
Automatism can best be described as a state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.
What was held in case lawCottle (Automatism)
• Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it – a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements
How may courts view voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs in relation to automatism
Where automatism is brought about by a voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs the Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention.
What is “Sane” and “Insane” Automatism?
Automatism may be quite different and distinct from insanity, although it may be due to a disease of the mind. Hence it is necessary to distinguish between:
o Sane automatism - The result of somnambulism (sleepwalking), a blow to the head or the effects of drugs
o Insane automatism - The result of a mental disease.
What is a “strict liability” offence?
• A strict liability offence is any offence that does not require an intent. The only way for a defendant can escape liability for such an offence is to prove a total absence of fault.
• Example: Driving with Excess breath alcohol.
How do New Zealand Courts deal with a defence of Automatism arising out of taking alcohol and/or drugs?
In New Zealand, the courts are likely to steer a middle course, allowing a defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol and drugs, to offences of basic intent only. They are likely to disallow the defence where the state of mind is obviously self-induced, the person is blameworthy, and the consequences could have been expected.
General rules regarding intoxication
• The general rule has been that intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence:
o Where the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so as to bring s23 (Insanity) of the Crimes Act 1961 into effect.
o If intent is required as an essential element of the offence and the drunkenness is such that the defence can plead a lack of intent to commit the offence.
o Where the intoxication causes a state of automatism (complete acquittal).
What was held in case law Kamipeli?
It does not have to be shown that the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, merely that, because of their drunken state, they did not have the proper state of mind to be guilty
As a general guideline, most offences within the Crimes Act 1961, will require an intent (Mens rea) of some kind. Outline a defence that would therefore be generally available:
The defence of intoxication will be available to the defence to establish that the defendant did not have the required intent to carry out the offence
Outline section 25 of the Crimes Act 1961, ignorance of the law:
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.
