automatism

Question 1

Which case defines automatism?

Answer 1

Automatism is defined in Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

Question 2

What is the definition of automatism?

Answer 2

It is ‘an act done by the muscles without any control of 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 an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking’.

Question 3

What is automatism?

Answer 3

This defence is also referred to as non-insane automatism and acts as a complete defence.

Question 4

What does a successful plea mean for the defendant?

Answer 4

The defendant will be acquitted.

Question 5

What 2 things must the defendant show to succeed in the defence?

Answer 5

1. Automatism must have an external cause
2. The defendant’s actions must be completely involuntary.

Question 6

Explain external cause. Back with case example and other examples.

Answer 6

The cause of the automatism must be external as in R v Quick.

Some examples include sneezing, the effect of a drug, a blow to the head, etc.

Question 7

What did the case of Hill v Baxter approve?

Answer 7

This concept of no fault when the defendant was in an automatic state through an external cause was approved.

Question 7

What was accepted in the ruling of the case of R v T?

Answer 7

It was accepted that exceptional stress or suffering from PTSD can be grounds for the defence.

Question 8

Explain complete involuntary actions. Back with case example.

Answer 8

There must be a ‘total destruction of voluntary control’ to raise the defence which was held in the case of A-G’s Reference (No.2 of 1992).

Question 9

What happens if the defendant has a reduced or partial control of his actions?

Answer 9

Reduced or partial control of one’s action is not sufficient to constitute non-insane automatism, so it would need to be shown that the defendant had a complete loss of self-control.

Question 10

What happens if the defendant was self-induced?

Answer 10

Whether or not the non-insane automatism was self-induced is taken into consideration.

Question 11

What is self-induced automatism? Back with case example.

Answer 11

This is where the defendant knows that his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state, e.g., a diabetic failing to eat after taking insulin as in R v Bailey.

Question 12

What crimes does the defence apply to?

Answer 12

The defence applies differently to specific intent and basic intent offences.

Question 13

What if the offence is one of a specific intent crime?

Answer 13

If the offence is one of specific intent, then self-induced automatism can be a defence as the defendant lacks the mens rea for the offence.

They have a loss of control; therefore, they will not be guilty.

Question 14

What if the offence is one of a basic intent crime?

Answer 14

However, if the offence is one of basic intent, the defendant cannot use the defence if he was reckless, so, 1 of 3 rules apply:

Question 15

What is the first rule for basic intent crime of automatism? (Hint = recklessness).

Answer 15

Where the defendant has been reckless in getting into an automatic state, self-induced automatism cannot be a defence.

Question 16

What is the second rule of a basic intent crime for automatism? (Hint = intoxicant case).

Answer 16

Where the self-induced automatic state is caused through an intoxicating substance, automatism cannot be a defence.

Question 17

Why cannot the defence of automatism be used if the self-induced state is caused through an intoxicant? Back with case example.

What would it mean and require to prove liability for a basic intent crime?

Answer 17

This is because becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a ‘reckless course of conduct’ as in DPP v Majewski,

,therefore, recklessness is sufficient for a basic intent offence.

Question 18

What is the third rule of a basic intent crime for automatism? (Hint = unaware actions leading to a self-induced automatic state).

Back with case example.

Answer 18

Where the defendant is unaware his actions are to lead to a self-induced automatic state in which he commits an offence, then he has not been reckless.