Automatism Flashcards by USER 1

In what case was automatism clearly defined?

Bratty v Attorney General

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

How did the case of Bratty define automatism?

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?

Not at all

Perfectly

What are the two types of automatism?

insane automatism

non-insane automatism

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is insane automatism?

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?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is non-insane automatism?

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?

Not at all

Perfectly

Why is non-insane automatism a defence?

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?

Not at all

Perfectly

What must the cause be for non-insane automatism?

an external one

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

a blow to the head
attack by a swarm of bees
sneezing
hypnotism
effect of a drug

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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)

Hill v Baxter

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What happened in the case of Hill v Baxter?

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?

Not at all

Perfectly

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?

Hill v Baxter

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What was accepted in the case of T?

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

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What happened in the case of T?

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?

Not at all

Perfectly

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?

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

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

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is not sufficient to constitute non-insane automatism?

a reduced or partial control of one’s actions

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’?

Attorney General’s Reference

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

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

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

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

Attorney’s General’s Reference

What is self induced automatism?

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

What are examples of self induced automatism?

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.

Where does the law on self induced automatism come from?

Bailey

What happened in the case of Bailey?

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

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?

Bailey

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

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

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

when the offence charged is one of specific intent

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

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

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

when the offence charged is one of basic intent

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

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

what are examples of basic intent and specific intent offences?

basic intent- wounding, manslaughter, rape | specific intent- murder, s.18,

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?

Coley 2013

What happened in the case of Coley?

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.

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?

Hardie

What happened in the case of Hardie?

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.

Hardie