automatism

Question 1

what is the general definition of automatism

Answer 1

This covers situations where the body reacts without any control of the mind

Question 2

what case defined automatism

Answer 2

Bratty

Question 3

what did the Bratty

Answer 3

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

Question 4

what are the 4 requirements of automatism

Answer 4

1. The D’s Actions were Involuntary
2. There was a Total Loss of Control
3. This was due to External Factors
4. Self-Induced Automatism can only be used for Specific Intent Crimes

Question 5

is automatism caused by external or internal factors

Answer 5

external (your doing gr8 sweetie x)

Question 6

if d is successful what is the outcome for them

Answer 6

Not Guilty
Complete Defense – D walks free

Question 7

case for ds actions must be involuntary

Answer 7

Hill V Baxter
(Lorry driver claimed automatism stating that he blacked out due to a mystery illness when he went through a stop sign and hit another car.
The Court said he had not proven enough for automatism and that he had merely fallen asleep at the wheel. He was guilty)

Question 8

total loss of control case

Answer 8

AG’s Ref (2 of 1992) 1993
Lorry driver crashed into a car on the hard shoulder. He claimed automatism as he said the extended motorway driving had lead to him being in a ‘trance-like state’. Court said this was only a partial loss of control so he was guilty

Question 9

external factors case

Answer 9

R v T 1990
This has included PTSD.

Here it caused a rape victim to commit a robbery.

Question 10

what cases can you use as a comparison to back this (think diabetes)

Answer 10

R v Quick and R v Hennessy

Question 11

Self-Induced Automatism meaning

Answer 11

D knows their conduct is likely to bring about an automatic state (act without thinking) which could lead to aggression or violence

Question 12

what is a specific intent crime

Answer 12

mens rea of the offence is intention only

Question 13

what is a basic intent crime

Answer 13

mens rea of the offence includes intention or recklessness

Question 14

what type of crime is the defense available for

Answer 14

specific intent crime

Question 15

what case laid out rules for this

Answer 15

R v Bailey 1983

Question 16

what type of crime were these rules for

Answer 16

basic intent

Question 17

what are the rules (3)

Answer 17

If the cause of the automatism is due to recklessness from the D (e.g. not taking medication when required), this amounts to recklessness for the mens rea, so automatism is not a defense

If the cause of automatism is voluntary intoxication (drink/drugs) this amounts to recklessness so there is no defense

If D does not know their actions will lead to an automatic state, then they are not reckless and the defense is allowed

Question 18

If the cause of automatism is voluntary intoxication (drink/drugs) this amounts to recklessness so there is no defense
CASE

Answer 18

(DPP v Majewski)
had a fight in the pub

Question 19

If D does not know their actions will lead to an automatic state, then they are not reckless and the defense is allowed
CASE

Answer 19

(R v Hardie)
He consumed a large amount of Valium to calm himself after an argument with the lady he lived with. In an intoxicated state, he set fire to a wardrobe in his bedroom.

Question 20

what crimes are specific intent crimes (intention only)

Answer 20

Murder, s.18 OAPA, Robbery

Question 21

is the automatism defense available for these crimes

Answer 21

Yes because there is a lack of mens rea for the offence

Question 22

what crimes are basic intent crimes (intention or recklessness)

Answer 22

Assault,
Battery, ABH, s.20 OAPA, Manslaughter

Question 23

is the automatism defense available for these crimes (think bailey)

Answer 23

It depends on the circumstances from Bailey:
No if D was reckless or intoxicated
Yes if D did not know it would have that effect