Automatism

Question 1

What is automatism also known as?

Answer 1

non-insane automatism (insanity is insane automatism)

Question 2

Where does automatism occur?

Answer 2

When an involuntary matrual reaction occurs for example the hypothetical situation announced in Hill v Baxter 1958 where a swarm of bees flies into the car and stings so the driver loses control
OR where the D is not concious of his actions and what he is doing is due to an external factor e.g a blow to the head

Question 3

What case did Lord Denning summorise automatism?

Answer 3

Bratty 1963 (sleepwalking) “an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, 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 sleepwalking”

Question 4

What does a successful plea of automatism lead to?

Answer 4

An accquital

Question 5

What must the D show to have a successful plea of automatism?

Answer 5

The automatism caused a total loss of control over his bodily movements, partial or impaired control will prohibit the use of the defence (R v Isitt 1978 who was convicted of dangerous driving whilst not being aware that there was a police car blocking the road)

Question 6

What case was automatism originally allowed but later rejected?

Answer 6

Watmore v Jenkins 1962 - D drove dangerously whilst suffering from progressive hypoglycemia and gradually lost consciousness over a 5 mile journey, accepted but later rejected as there was not a complete destruction of voluntary control

Question 7

What case shows the limited scope of the defence?

Answer 7

Broome v Perkins 1987 - D was a diabetic who went into a hypoglycemic state despite eating a Mars Bar to counteract the effect of insulin, driving on a familiar road and hit another car, afterwards he could not remember anything but saw his car in damage reported himself to police, medical opinion stated it was ‘without due care and attention’, appeal to QBD who said he was able to excercise some voluntary control so defence not available

Question 8

What case confirmed that reduced awareness cannot amount of an automatism defence?

Answer 8

Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 1992 (1993) - lorry driver driving down hard shoulder of a motorway, hit a broken-down car which was stationary and killed 2 people, he argued he was in a trance-like state due to driving long distances on motorways, successful plea of automatism but prosecution appealed to COA who said defence not allowed as state reduced but did not eliminate his awareness of what he was doing

Question 9

What is the sneezing case?

Answer 9

R v Whooley 1997 - driving very close to car in front in traffic queue when had a sneezing fit and lost control of HGV vehicle causing a domino effect, defence allowed

Question 10

What case shows that a dissociative state caused by an extraordinary event may class as automatism?

Answer 10

R v T 1990 - young female charged with robbery and ABH, week later discovered she had been raped 3 days prior to arrest and diagnosed with PTSD so was in a dissociate state at time of offence, automatism considered by jury

Question 11

What case was R v T 1990 undermined in?

Answer 11

R v Narborough 2004 - D convicted of wounding with intent, claimed to be suffering from PTSD with flashbacks due to childhood sexual abuse. claimed he acted like a zombie, evidence not allowed, COA upheld conviction as psychiatrist had not said PTSD means you lose control

Question 12

What case supports the idea that automatism must not be self-induced?

Answer 12

Kay v Butterworth 1945 - felt tried driving home but continued to do so and caused an accident, defence not available as he voluntarily carried on driving

Question 13

What has the law said about cases involving insulin and not eating?

Answer 13

the availability of the defence will depend on whether he knew there was a risk of getting into a state of automatism from not eating after taking insulin, stated in R v Quick 1973

Question 14

Where can automatism not be a defence?

Answer 14

Where D has been reckless in becoming an automaton, or where the automatism has been caused by illegal drugs or drink.
However, can be used where D does not know that his actions are likely to result in an automic state as he cannot be said to have been reckless (R v Harding 1985)

Question 15

R v Bailey 1983 was a basic intent crime to the defence was not allowed. Explain the case…

Answer 15

D was a diabetic who injured ex-girlfriends new boyfriend during a hypoglycemic attack, had not eaten enough after taking insulin. COA held that self-induced automatism can provide a defence but in this case there was insufficient evidence to raise the defence

Question 16

What was the decision held in R v C 2007 and R v Clarke 2009?

Answer 16

Automatism not available when both D’s were diabetics who lost control of their cars and killed a pedestrian, automatism was self-induced
More recently confirmed in R v Coley 2013 when D induced an acute state of involuntary behaviour by his own fault by consuming a large amount of strong cannabis before committing the offence

Question 17

What case shows that when the D;s automatism was due to drink or drugs the defence of intoxication applies?

Answer 17

R v Lipman 1970

Question 18

What is the problem with internal and external causes to plead automatism?

Answer 18

It leads to absurd and irrational differences - Quick 1983 and Hennessy 1989

Question 19

What have judges been guided by?

Answer 19

Public policy approaches for sake of public protection rather than legal principles - e.g. in Bratty Lord Denning set out continuing danger theory which has been influential to other decisions (R v Sullivan 1984)

Question 20

What has the Law Commissions Coping Paper raised concerns about?

Answer 20

Court in R v Burgess 1991 were not persuaded that a D who offended whilst sleepwalking was not allowed to plead automatism. However Canadian courts and lower courts have taken a generous approach to the issue in cases like R v Thomas 2009 - inconsistent

Question 21

What did the Law Commissions Criminal Code Bill 1989 propose about the defence of automatism?

Answer 21

Maintain the law as it stands on the ground of serving public interest in the best way - they provided a defintion of automatism that included ‘sleep’ - if this was implemented then decision would have to be reversed in R v Burgess 1991

Question 22

What did the Law Commission publish in 2013 in Criminal Liability; Insanity and Automatism?

Answer 22

Suggests the defence would not be available if the lack of capacity was self-induced and the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to disprove the defence