automatism Flashcards
how did Bratty v Attorney general of Northern Ireland (1963)
define automatism?
“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.”
what are the two types of automatism?
insane and non-insane
what is insane automatism?
Where the cause of the automatism is a disease of the mind under the M’Naghten rules.
This is normally a defence of insanity and a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity
what is non-insane automatism?
This is where the cause of the lack of control is external.
Where such a defence succeeds, it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guilty.
what is the AR of non insane automatism?
The AR of the offence was not voluntary
There was no MR due to automatism
The cause must be external to the defendant:
A blow to the head
An attack by a swarm of bees
A sneezing fit
Hypnotism
The effects of taking a drug (may raise issues of self-induced automatism)
Hill v Baxter
The defendant (B) was charged with dangerous driving. He claimed to have no memory from an early point in his journey to immediately after the incident. He contended that he had been overcome by a sudden illness and was therefore not liable under criminal law.
At first instance, it was accepted that B was “unconscious” at the time of the accident and, accordingly, the charges were dismissed. The prosecutor appealed and argued that having found that B had exercised skill in driving immediately prior to the incident it could not also be found that he was unconscious at the same time. B argued that whilst he was driving, he was driving in a state of automatism and he lackedmens rea.
principle: This dealt with the issue of no fault behaviour due to the D being in an automatic state
R v T (1990)
D was raped. Three days later she took part in a robbery and assault. She claimed that at the time she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the rape and during the robbery she acted in a dream like state. The trial judge allowed the defence of automatism to go to the jury but the D was convicted.
This case accepted that exceptional stress can be an external factor that can cause automatism.
Attorney-General’s ref (no 2of 1992) (1993)
D was a lorry driver who, after driving for several hours, drove along the hard shoulder of the motorway for about half a mile. He hit a stationary broken-down car, killing two people.
He said he was suffering from a condition of ‘driving without awareness’ which puts a driver in a trance like state. This could be brought on by driving long distances on featureless motorways. He was acquitted by the jury.
The attorney general referred a point of law to the COA who ruled that, because this condition only causes partial loss of control, it does not amount to automatism. Even in this state, the driver has still enough awareness to drive a vehicle.
what is self induced automatism?
When the defendant knows that his or her conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state.
This includes a diabetic, knowing the risks of failing to eat after taking insulin, or a person who drinks after taking medication.
If the defendant knew the risks the defence is only available for specific intent crimes.
If the response was unanticipated (e.g. side effects of a drug that were not expected) the defence can be used for basic and specific intent crimes.
R v Bailey (1983)
D was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin to control his diabetes. He became aggressive and hit the victim over the head with an iron bar. He was charged with s 18 OAPA 1861 - a specific intent offence. The trial judge ruled that the defence of automatism was not available. The Court of Appeal decided that the judge’s decision to deny the defence to a specific intent offence was wrong (and would have been in the case of the basic intent offence unless D knew or knew of the risk that he might engage in dangerous or aggressive behaviour) but the result was not affected because there was no significant evidence of automatism.
R v Hardie (1984)
D was depressed because his girlfriend had told him to move out of their flat. He took some Valium tablets which he had not been prescribed. The girlfriend encouraged him to take the tablets, saying that it would calm him down. He then set fire to a wardrobe in the flat. His defence was automatism as he said he did not know what he was doing because of the Valium. The trial judge directed the jury to ignore the effect of the tablets and he was convicted of arson (part of criminal damage - a basic intent offence).
The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction as the defendant had taken the drug because he thought it would calm him down. This is the normal effect of Valium. So the defendant had not been reckless and the defence of automatism should have been left to the jury to consider.
