Automatism

Question 1

Define Automatism and state when/who defined it.

Answer 1

• In case: Bratty v A-G for NI, Automatism defined as ‘Act which s done by the muscles without any control by mind such as a spasm, reflex action, or convulsion; or act done by a person who’s not conscious of what he’s doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking’

Question 2

State what D needs to show, in order to use the Defence of Automatism.

Answer 2

• Act was involuntary
• Caused by an external factor

Question 3

Explain Insane Automatism

Answer 3

• Where case of automatism is internal + disease of the mind- within M’Naghten rules.
• Go through 3 rules of insanity, but 3rd rule must be that D was in state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness
• Then defence is insanity + verdict no guilty by reason of insanity

Question 4

Explain Non-Insane Automatism

Answer 4

• Where cause is external, where defence succeeds, is complete defence + D isn’t guilty
• Actus Reus not done voluntarily, D doesn’t have required Mens Rea
• External causes include: attack from swarm of bees, hypnotism, sneezing fit, blow to head

Question 5

Define Self-Induced Automatism

Answer 5

• Where D knows conduct is likely to bring on automatic state
• Example- Diabetic failing to eat after taking insulin
• Defence works based on whether offence committed is one of specific/basic intent

Question 6

Explain Self-Induced Automatism, when the Offence committed is one of Basic Intent.

Answer 6

• Change Mens Rea to recklessness
• Must be proved by prosecution
• If D was reckless in getting into automatic state, can’t use defence.

Question 7

Explain Self-Induced Automatism, when the Offence committed is one of Specific Intent

Answer 7

• Apply defence if full, but if Self-Induced Automatic state was caused through drink/illegal drugs, D can’t use defence of Automatism- as Intoxication- Case: DPP v Majewski, R v Coley (2013)
• When D doesn’t know actions are likely to lead to self-induced automatic state, in which he may commit an offence- hasn’t even reckless + can use defence- Case: R v Hardie
• If automotive state resulted from improper action/failure by D (e.g. Diabetic took excessive dose of insulin) automatism will be defence to Specific Intent Offences, as D can’t be in a worse position than he would be in if his state resulted from Intoxication- Case: R v Bailey

Question 8

Explain Non-Self Induced Automatism

Answer 8

• Case: Hill v Baxter- shows concept of no fault when D was in automatic state through external cause was approved- in this case, court approved judgement in earlier case of Kay Butterworth
• Also accepted exceptional stress can be an external factor- Case: R V T
• Reduced/Partial control of D’s actions not sufficient to constitute to Non-Insane Automatism- Case: A-G’s Reference (No.2 of 1992) (1993)- must be full/total loss