Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

*ANEWL-Defences > Automatism > Flashcards

Automatism Flashcards

1
Q

In what case was automatism clearly defined?

A

Bratty v Attorney General

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How did the case of Bratty define automatism?

A

As an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the two types of automatism?

A

insane automatism

non-insane automatism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is insane automatism?

A

This is where the cause of automatism is a disease of the mind within the M’Naghten Rules. In such a case the defence is insanity and the verdict not guilty by reason of insanity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is non-insane automatism?

A

This is where the cause is an external one. Where such a defence succeeds, it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guilty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Why is non-insane automatism a defence?

A

this is because the actus reus done by D is not voluntary and D also does not have the required mens rea for the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What must the cause be for non-insane automatism?

A

an external one

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are examples of external causes for non-insane automatism?

A
  • a blow to the head
  • attack by a swarm of bees
  • sneezing
  • hypnotism
  • effect of a drug
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What case approved the idea that where D has no fault and was in an automatic state through an external cause, D would not be guilty? (though not in this case due to insufficient evidence)

A

Hill v Baxter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What happened in the case of Hill v Baxter?

A

D was convicted of driving dangerously upon appeal as although he claimed to have no memory from an early point in his journey, there was no evidence D was suffering from a black out.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

D was convicted of driving dangerously upon appeal as although he claimed to have no memory from an early point in his journey, there was no evidence D was suffering from a black out.
What case is this?

A

Hill v Baxter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What was accepted in the case of T?

A

it was accepted that exceptional stress can be an external factor which may cause automatism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happened in the case of T?

A

D was raped and suffered from PTSD as a result. Soon after she participated in a robbery. Trial judge allowed defence to go to jury, but jury convicted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

D was raped and suffered from PTSD as a result. Soon after she participated in a robbery. Trial judge allowed defence to go to jury, but jury convicted.
What case is this?

A

T

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What case accepted that exceptional stress can be an external factor which may cause automatism?

A

T

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is not sufficient to constitute non-insane automatism?

A

a reduced or partial control of one’s actions

17
Q

A reduced or partial control of one’s actions is not sufficient to constitute non-insane automatism. In what case did the COA hold that there must be a ‘total destruction of voluntary control’?

A

Attorney General’s Reference

18
Q

What did the COA hold in Attorney General’s Reference?

A

that there must be a ‘total destruction of voluntary control’

19
Q

What happened in the case of Attorney General’s Reference 1993?

A

D was a lorry driver who hit a car killing two people. D claimed that he suffered from the condition ‘driving without awareness’ putting him into a trance. Jury acquitted him. Attorney General has no ruled that this conditional only causes partial loss of control and should not result to automatism

20
Q

D was a lorry driver who hit a car killing two people. D claimed that he suffered from the condition ‘driving without awareness’ putting him into a trance. Jury acquitted him. Attorney General has no ruled that this conditional only causes partial loss of control and should not result to automatism
What case is this?

A

Attorney’s General’s Reference

21
Q

What is self induced automatism?

A

this is where D knows that his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state

22
Q

What are examples of self induced automatism?

A

a diabetic who knows the risk of failing to eat after taking insulin, or a person who drinks after taking medication when he has been told by his doctor that he must not take alcohol while on that medication.

23
Q

Where does the law on self induced automatism come from?

A

Bailey

24
Q

What happened in the case of Bailey?

A

D was a diabetic who failed to eat enough after taking insulin. He hit someone with an iron bar. COA upheld conviction as there was insufficient evidence of automatism

25
Q

D was a diabetic who failed to eat enough after taking insulin. He hit someone with an iron bar. COA upheld conviction as there was insufficient evidence of automatism
What case is this?

A

Bailey

26
Q

Although the appeal was dismissed in Bailey, the COA set out the rules on self-induced automatism. What is the rule?

A

there is a difference in the way the defence applies to specific intent offence and basic intent offence

27
Q

When can an offence have the defence of self induced automatism?

A

when the offence charged is one of specific intent

28
Q

If the offence charged is one of specific intent, then self-induced automatism can be a defence. Why is this?

A

this is because the defendant lacks the required mens rea for the offence

29
Q

When is the law more complicated for the defence of self induced automatism?

A

when the offence charged is one of basic intent

30
Q

If the offence charged is one of basic intent then the law is more complicated. What is the main rule?

A

the main rule is that the defendant cannot use the defence of automatism if he has brought about the automatic state by being reckless

31
Q

what are examples of basic intent and specific intent offences?

A

basic intent- wounding, manslaughter, rape

specific intent- murder, s.18,

32
Q

What are the 3 points of law set out in Bailey for basic intent offences?

A

1) If D has been reckless in getting into a state of automatism, self-induced automatism cannot be a defence. This is because subjective recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea of crimes of basic intent.
2) Where the self-induced automatic state is caused through drink or illegal drugs then D cannot use the defence. This is because DPP v Majewski decided that becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct..
3) Where D dos not know that his actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state, he has not been reckless and can use the defence of automatism

33
Q

In the case of Bailey, the second point of law for basic intent offences stated that where the self-induced automatic state is caused through intoxicating substances then D cannot use the defence, why is this?

A

this is because DPP v Majewski decided that becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct.

34
Q

In the case of Bailey, the first point of law for basic intent offences stated that where the defendant has been reckless in getting into a state of automatism, self induced automatism cannot be a defence. Why is this?

A

this is because subjective recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea of crimes of basic intent.

35
Q

In the case of Bailey the second point of law for basic intent offences stated that where the self-induced automatic state is caused through intoxicating substances then D cannot use the defence. This is because DPP v Majewski decided that becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct. What case illustrates this?

A

Coley 2013

36
Q

What happened in the case of Coley?

A

D had been taking cannabis which led him to attack his neighbours. COA pointed out that automatism was not available as a defence to a defendant who had induced an acute state of voluntary behaviour by his own fault.

37
Q

In the case of Bailey the third point of law for basic intent offences stated that where D does not know that his actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state he has not been reckless and can use the defence of automatism. What case illustrates this?

A

Hardie

38
Q

What happened in the case of Hardie?

A

D was depressed and took some Valium tablets to calm down. He set fire to a wardrobe. He said he didn’t know what he was doing because of the Valium. COA quashed conviction as D had taken the drug to calm down which is the normal effect of Valium. D had not been reckless.

39
Q

D was depressed and took some Valium tablets to calm down. He set fire to a wardrobe. He said he didn’t know what he was doing because of the Valium. COA quashed conviction as D had taken the drug to calm down which is the normal effect of Valium. D had not been reckless.
What case is this?

A

Hardie

*ANEWL-Defences (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions