Automatism Flashcards
What is automatism
a complete defence and the D is not guilty
D’s plea is that his actions were not under the control of his conscious mind i.e. his actions were involuntary (no voluntary AR and D does not have MR)
Who has the burden of proof
prosecution but D must produce medical evidence in support of this plea
What is the Bratty Definition of automatism
Any “act done by 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 is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or sleep walking”
what are the elements of automatism
- loss of control must be total
- cause of automatism must be external
- self-induced automatism is a defence to specific byt not basic intent crimes
- If D does not know his actions are likely to to lead to an automatic state, he has not been reckless and can use automatism
‘The Loss of control must be total’
Broome v Perkins
D in hypoglycemic state and drove home very eratilcally hitting other cars. D does not remember anything
ratio - D at times acted consciously and not automatically so he could be said to have been driving the car and should therefore be convicted
A-G ref
Lorry driver on motorway crashed onto car on hard shoulder killing 2. Defence argued that D was ‘arriving without awareness’ induced by the repetitive nature of motorway driving.
ratio - impaired or reduced control was not enough. someone ‘driving without awareness’ retains some control it was not a state capable of founding a defence of automatism
‘CAuse of automatism must be external’
Hill v Baxter
D in collision due to a swarm of bees.
ratio - a person should not be made liable at the criminal law who, through no fault of his own, becomes unconscious when driving.’
R v T
D was raped, 3 days later took part in robbery, claimed suffering from PTSD and acted in a ‘dream state’.
ratio - exceptional stress from traumatic event can be an ‘external factor’ whcih may cause automatism. Judge allowed defence to go to jury but was convicted as they did not believe her story
‘Self induced automatism is a defence to specific but not basic intent crimes’
Bailey -
Diabetic hit V over the head after taking insulin and failing to eat enough.
In crimes of specific intent, self-induced automatism can be a defence. in crimes of basic intent, self-induced automatism cannot be a defence if D was reckless.
what is specific intent crimes
where the intention must be proven e.g murder, S.18.
what is basic intent crimes
where recklessness is enough e.g. s20, s47 and assualt
’ If D does not know his actions are likely to lead an automatic state, he has not been reckless and can use automatism’
Hardie
D took valium thinking it would calm him down, had unexpected effect and he set fire to a wardrobe
ratio - d was not reckless and should have been able to use automatism
