Automatism

Question 1

Automatism

Answer 1

The defence of Automatism is a general defence, where the Automatism must be caused by an external cause. If used correctly, the defence can provide a full acquittal. However, there is no defence if the Automatism is self induced.

The definition of Automatism is given in Bratty v AG N.I 1963:
An act done by the muscles without any control of the mind, such as: spasm, reflex action, convulsion, or and act done by person not conscious of what they are doing e.g. whilst suffering from concussion or sleepwalking.

Types of Automatism

1. Insane Automatism
   - Where the cause of Automatism is a disease of the mind. Defence of Insanity will be used instead.
2. Non-Insane Automatism
   - Where the cause of Automatism is external, can be a complete defence to any crime.

Question 2

Non-Insane Automatism

Answer 2

This is a defence because the AR done by the D is not voluntary, D also lacks MR for crime. The cause must be external

R v T:

• D was raped 3 days earlier to committing a robbery and assault, D claimed she was in a dream like state after rape.
• Judge allowed defence of Automatism but Jury convicted D.

AGR No.2 1992:

• D lorry driver, drove along hard shoulder and hit stationary car, 2 people killed.
• D suffering from ‘driving without awareness’, putting D in trance like state, may be brought on by travelling long distances on motorways
• Acquitted using defence of Automatism
• Prosecution appealed and it was decided that D should not have been allowed defence

Question 3

Self-Induced Automatism

Answer 3

Where D knows his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state, no defence is available.

Specific Intent:
Possible defence because D lacks MR for crime when self-induced.

Basic Intent:
No Defence because bringing on automatic state is reckless.

Question 4

Reform

Answer 4

Draft Criminal Code 1989:

Re-Defined when D is not guilty when using Automatsim,
D not guilty of offence if:
-He acts in a state of Automatism, that his act
-is a reflect, spasm or convulsion
-Occurs whilst he is in a condition depriving of effective control of his act and
-The act was not done with the fault required for the offence

New definition allowed sleepwalking and epilepsy to be considered Non-Insane Automatism rather than Insanity.
However, criticised because complete acquittal may allow potentially dangerous person to re-offend.