Automatism

Question 1

What is Automatism also known as?

Answer 1

Non-Insane Automatism

Question 2

When does automatism occur?

Answer 2

When an involuntary natural reaction occurs
A hypothetical example was given in the case of Hill v Baxter (1958)
- where a motorist loses control when a swarm of bees flies into the car + stings the driver

OR where D isn’t conscious of his actions/ what he is doing due to an external factor e.g. blow to the head

Question 3

In what case did Lord Denning summarise Automatism?

What did he say?

Answer 3

Bratty (1963)
‘An act which is done by the muscles without any control of the mind such as a spasm or a reflex action, or an act done b someone who isn’t conscious of what he is doing’

Question 4

What does an successful plea lead to?

Answer 4

An acquittal

Question 5

What must the automatism be caused by?

Answer 5

An external factor

Supporting credible evidence is also needed to raise the defence (Hill v Baxter (1958))

Question 6

To successfully plead the defence, what must the D show?

Answer 6

That the automatism caused a total loss of control over his bodily movements
Impaired, reduced or partial control by the D will prohibit the use of the defence
Upheld in R v Isitt (1978)

Question 7

What was upheld in the case of R v Isitt (1978)?

Describe the case

Answer 7

For a successful plea, d must show the automatism caused a total loss of control over their bodily movements
Impaired/ reduced/ partial = insufficient

D = convicted of dangerous driving
Failed to stop after a road accident - avoided police car + road block
Medical evidence: D was in a DISSOCIATIVE STATE
Defence = rejected

Question 8

Describe the case of Watemore v Jenkins (1962)

Answer 8

D drove dangerously whilst suffering progressive hypoglycaemia
Gradually lost consciousness over 5 mile journey
Crashed the car
Automatism plea = accepted
But REVERSED on appeal - he’d driven for 5 miles
Held that there wasn’t a ‘complete destruction of voluntary control’

Question 9

What case shows the limited scope of the defence?

Describe the case

Answer 9

Broome v Perkins (1987)
D = diabetic, went into hypoglycaemic state despite eating mars bar to counteract the effect on the insulin
D = driving down familiar road, hit another car
Couldn’t remember anything about the journey
after seeing damage to his car, reported himself to police
Medical opinion: that it is ‘without due care + attention’

Magistrates dismissed case based on automatism plea
Prosecution appealed to QBD, were successful
Ct decided D = able to exercise some voluntary control over movements therefore defence = unavailable
He responded to ‘gross stimuli’ so he had been ‘driving’ at the time of the offence

Question 10

What was the ruling in the case of Broome v Perkins (1987)?

Answer 10

Magistrates dismissed the case - automatism plea
Prosecution appeal to QBD, were successful
Ct decided D = able to exercise some voluntary control over movements
Defence therefore = unavailable
He responded to ‘gross stimuli’ so he had been ‘driving’ at the time of the offence

Question 11

How has the decision in the case of Broome v Perkins (1987) been criticised?

Answer 11

Criticised for being too harsh
BUT later followed in A.G Ref. No 2 of 1992 (1993)
Case confirmed that reduced awareness cannot amount to the defence of automatism

Question 12

What case followed the same ruling as in the case of Broome v Perkins (1987), despite the criticisms of it being harsh?

Answer 12

Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 1992 (1993)

Confirmed that reduced awareness cannot amount to the defence of automatism

Question 13

Describe the case of A.G Ref. No 2 of 1992 (1993)

Answer 13

D = lorry driver
After driving several hours drove along hard shoulder of motorway
Hit stationary broken-down car, killed 2 people
D: was in a trance-like state Brough on from driving for long distance motorway
Acquitted due to successful plea of automatism
CA: D’s state didn’t amount to automatism; trance-like state reduced BUT DIDN’T eliminate awareness of what he was doing

Question 14

Describe the case of R v Whoolley (1997)

Answer 14

D admitted driving very close to car in front in traffic queue
D claimed that he suddenly had a sneezing attack, lost control of his HGV vehicle
Crashed into car in front, caused domino effect involving 7 other vehicles
Ct decided that a sneezing attack could be type of involuntary act that came under the defence

Question 15

Cts will sometimes be prepared to rule that a ‘dissociative state’ caused by an extraordinary event may be classed as automatism
Name and describe a case that illustrates this

Answer 15

R v T (1990)
D = young female
Charged with robbery + ABH
1 week later it = discovered that d had been raped 3 days prior to arrest + diagnosed with PTSD
Resulted in a ‘dissociative state’ (dream like, detached from reality) at time of the offence
Judge felt it was appropriate to leave the issue of automatism to the jury

Question 16

What case undermined the ruling in the case of R v T (1990)?

Describe the case

Answer 16

R v Narborough (2004)
D = convicted of wounding its intent
Claimed to be suffering from PTSD, flashbacks of childhood abuse
During the attack, suffered flashback, acted ‘like a zombie’
Judge: evidence = inadmissible
CA upheld conviction; psychiatrist hadn’t referred to evidence that suggests that PTSD means a D is no longer in control of his actions
- not enough evidence to prove a total loss of control

Question 17

What case supports the idea that automatism cannot be self-induced?
Describe the case

Answer 17

Kay v Butterworth (1945)
D felt tired whilst driving home but continued, caused accident
Defence = unavailable; D voluntarily carried on driving

Question 18

What does the law say when the automatism is self-induce in relation to insulin?
What case was this stated in?

Answer 18

where a D has place himself in a state of automatism (e.g. by failing to eat after taking insulin) the availability of the defence will depend on whether the D knew there was a risk of getting into such a state
Stated in R v Quick (1973)

Question 19

Describe the case of R v Bailey (1983)

Answer 19

D, diabetic, injured his ex-girldfriends new boyfriend during hypoglycaemic attack
Had taken insulin but hadn’t eaten enough
Trial judge: automatism = available
CA held: self-induced automatism can provide a defence BUT in this case, = insufficient evidences to raise the defence

Question 20

Where can automatism not be a defence?

Answer 20

when D had been reckless in becoming an automaton OR where automatism = caused by illegal drugs/drink

BUT can be used when D doesn’t know that his actions = likely to result in an automatic state as he cannot be said to have been reckless
- shown in R v Harding (1985)

Question 21

What was the decision held in the cases of R v C (2007) and R v Clarke (2009)?

Answer 21

Both D’s = diabetic, loss control of their cars due to hypoglycaemic episode
Killed a pedestrian
Raised automatism to charges of causing death by dangerous driving
CA ruled that their automatism = self-induced + defence = unavailable

Question 22

What more recent case reaffirmed the principle set in the cases of R v C (2007) and R v Clarke (2009)?

Answer 22

R v Coley (2013)
Defence = not available where D had induced an acute state of involuntary behaviour by his own fault
e.g. consuming large amount of strong cannabis before committing the offence

Question 23

What happens when the D’s automatism was due to the consumption of drink/drugs?
What case illustrates this?

Answer 23

Defence of intoxication applies

Shown in R v Lipman (1970)

Question 24

What is an issue with needing to distinguish between internal/ external causes to decide whether a D can use the defence?

Answer 24

Leads to absurd + irrational differences
Compare R v Quick (1983) and R v Hennessy (1989)

The main reason given = internal factors are more likely to reach than a state caused by an external factor.
BUT many medical conditions = due to a combination of both

Question 25

What have judges been guided by in relation to this defence?

Answer 25

Guided by public policy approaches for public protection rather than legal principles
e.g. Lord Denning ‘continuing danger theory’ put forward in the case of Bratty

Has been very influential in subsequent decisions (R v Sullivan)

Question 26

What was the obiter statement Denning made in the case of Bratty when defining automatism?

Answer 26

He included sleepwalking as a possible case of the D’s automatic state

Question 27

Was Denning’s obiter statement (in Bratty) followed in the case of R v Burgess (1991)?

Answer 27

No, Ct wasn’t persuaded by the definition + wouldn’t allow D to plead automatism to an offence committed whilst sleepwalking

This is different to Canadian Cts who have allowed automatism to be raised for sleepwalking Ds (Parks 1992)

Question 28

Where do the English Cts stand on using the defence for sleepwalking Ds?

Answer 28

Denning’s definition in Bratty allowed it (obiter)
Cts in R v Burgess (1991) not persuaded by it
Lower English Cts have taken a generous approach to the issue (R v Thomas 2009)

Canadian Cts allow the defence (Parks 1992)

Question 29

What did the 2012 Law Commission’s Scoping Paper raise concerns about?

Answer 29

In R v Burgess (1991) Cts weren’t persuaded by Denning’s definition of automatism
Canadian Cts allow it (parks 1992)
Lower English Cts have taken a generous approach to the issue
INCONSISTENT

Question 30

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

Answer 30

Maintain the law as it is; stands on ground that the public interest = best served by acquitting anyone who acts in a state of automatism
It provided a definition of automatism + included ‘sleep’ as a cause of automatism

If adopted, would involve a reversal of CA decision in R v Burgess (1991)

Question 31

What did the Law Commission suggest in a 2013 published paper entitled Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism?

Answer 31

Suggests new statutory defence of automatism
The defence wouldn’t be available if the lack of capacity = self-induced
Burden of proof would be on the prosecution be disprove the defence