automatism Flashcards
what is the general definition of automatism
This covers situations where the body reacts without any control of the mind
what case defined automatism
Bratty
what did the Bratty
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
what are the 4 requirements of automatism
- The D’s Actions were Involuntary
- There was a Total Loss of Control
- This was due to External Factors
- Self-Induced Automatism can only be used for Specific Intent Crimes
is automatism caused by external or internal factors
external (your doing gr8 sweetie x)
if d is successful what is the outcome for them
Not Guilty
Complete Defense – D walks free
case for ds actions must be involuntary
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)
total loss of control case
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
external factors case
R v T 1990
This has included PTSD.
Here it caused a rape victim to commit a robbery.
what cases can you use as a comparison to back this (think diabetes)
R v Quick and R v Hennessy
Self-Induced Automatism meaning
D knows their conduct is likely to bring about an automatic state (act without thinking) which could lead to aggression or violence
what is a specific intent crime
mens rea of the offence is intention only
what is a basic intent crime
mens rea of the offence includes intention or recklessness
what type of crime is the defense available for
specific intent crime
what case laid out rules for this
R v Bailey 1983
what type of crime were these rules for
basic intent
what are the rules (3)
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
If the cause of automatism is voluntary intoxication (drink/drugs) this amounts to recklessness so there is no defense
CASE
(DPP v Majewski)
had a fight in the pub
If D does not know their actions will lead to an automatic state, then they are not reckless and the defense is allowed
CASE
(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.
what crimes are specific intent crimes (intention only)
Murder, s.18 OAPA, Robbery
is the automatism defense available for these crimes
Yes because there is a lack of mens rea for the offence
what crimes are basic intent crimes (intention or recklessness)
Assault,
Battery, ABH, s.20 OAPA, Manslaughter
is the automatism defense available for these crimes (think bailey)
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
