automatism

Question 1

How does automatism operate

Answer 1

Acts as a complete unqualified defence where D commits a crime where their actions are involuntary

Question 2

What did Bratty v AG N. Ireland say

Answer 2

no act is punishable if it is done involuntarily and an involuntary act in this context…means an act which is done by the muscles without any control of the mind, such as spasm, a reflex or a convulsion, or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing

Question 3

Are all involuntary actions caught be the defence

Answer 3

• it is not every involuntary act which leads to a complete acquittal. Take first an involuntary act which proceeds from a state of drunkenness…’
  Bratty, approved in Majewski

Question 4

What happens where intoxication causes the automatism

Answer 4

if the cause of D’s automatism is intoxication, the rules on intoxication take priority (and D’s act may, therefore, be both involuntary and ‘punishable’, depending on the application of Majewski).

Question 5

How can the defence be raised

Answer 5

D bears the evidential burden in relation to automatism (Bratty) – once raised, the prosecution must disprove.

Question 6

What needs to be disproved

Answer 6

Must prove three matters: total LOSC, external matter, and It was not his fault that this happened.

Question 7

What is a LOSC

Answer 7

Requires the actions of D not to be controlled by the mind. There must be a total failure of the mental faculties.
If the mind is still functioning, even in a confused state, the defence of automatism will not be available.

Question 8

In which case did was a defence rejected for lack of loss

Answer 8

• Broome v Perkins: . Diabetic D who under the influence of insulin taken properly in accordance with constructions experienced an unexpected drop in his blood sugar while driving. D drove erratically. He was convicted of a driving offence, Rejected defence as he had been able to steer and apply the brakes therefore he had not completely lost control. Divisional court overturned that and said that because the driver could still react albeit imperfectly his mind and his body were not totally disengaged as automatism required. Harsh decision.

Question 9

What happened in AG Ref No 2

Answer 9

AG Ref No 2: CA case takes same view at Broome. Driving case where D crashed into another vehicle and there was medical evidence that there is a condition called driving without awareness that a person can fall into on a long journey. CA said this may be so, but not automatism, as no total lack of control.

Question 10

What happened in Coley

Answer 10

D who had taken cannabis entered a physotic condition and went into his neighbours house and stabbed him. He claimed he was acting out a character in a video game while in a dream like state. However, the CA expressly approved AG Ref, and said it was necessary to distinguish between truly involuntary action and irrational action which is what happened in Coley. What is more, driven by intoxication

Question 11

What happened in McGhee

Answer 11

• D on prescription medication for tinnitus. Because he could not sleep he mixed his drugs with alcohol, although he had been told not to. He started an argument in which he caused ABH to one victim and stabbed another. The CA said no automatism, and no total loss of control. Unnecessary to make point in the sense that it was a self-induced condition. Case approved.

Question 12

In both McGhee and Coley what did D have

Answer 12

Specific intent for the crimes they committed

Question 13

Case of R v T

Answer 13

robbery, turned out suffering PTSD and had been the victim of rape some days before. Unlike to be the same today, similar to coley and dream like state that was irrational rather than involuntary. When the case put to the jury they convicted her. Did not think this was a genuine case.

Question 14

What if there is multiple causes

Answer 14

It would seem from Coley that must look at the cause in so far as ascertainable as to what set the events into motion. In Coley episode was the acute effect fo the intoxicants even if the effect was to induce a medical condition. Proper defence is intoxication.

Question 15

What must the automatism be caused by

Answer 15

Automatism is caused by external factors e.g. concussion, swarm of bees, sneezing fit (Whoolley)

Question 16

Why have the court distinguished between external and internal factors

Answer 16

an external trigger is not a disease of the mind, and because a person is not likely to be hit by lightning twice. Hence, if a person suffers concussion after being hit over the head by a robber, there is little to suggest he will be hit over the head by another robber in the future; but if he has some internal cause such as diabetes, he may have future attacks’. Glanville Williams.

Question 17

What external factor in R v T

Answer 17

The external factor could be a traumatic event including severe shock including PTSD D was raped. Took part in robbery and assault. Claimed she was suffering PTSD as a result of the rape and she had therefore acted in a dream like state.

Question 18

What happened in R v Bingham:

Answer 18

D accused of stealing a can of coke and a sandwich. He said he did not know what he was doing because of a low blood sugar state, reliant on the condition of diabetes. Therefore, the defence was insanity. The CA said not quite right, if diabetic fails to medicate, and doesn’t take insulin then the blood sugar levels will rise and relying on that will be defence on insanity is an internal cause. If take insulin and that causes the problem and blood sugar is too low can raise automatism, cause is external so can raise a defence.

Question 19

What happened in Hennessey

Answer 19

took a car without consent, he was a diabetic but he had not taken his medication. Prima facie looking at insanity as the defence, but he said there were other things that were causes of the episode; stress, anxiety and depression. He argued that these were external factors. The CA agreed with the trial judge that insanity was the only applicable defence. What they said about the other factors, they lacked a feature of novelty of accident. The way rationalise was to say that these are things that are ongoing and therefore prone to recur, although themselves not insanity, they are not sufficient to stop the defence taking priority. Is that satisfactory?

Question 20

In which case are normal stresses of life excluded.

Answer 20

Rabey: rejected by a woman. Can’t allow external factors which are part of the ordinary stresses and strains of life. This needs to be extra ordinary.

Question 21

What is the final condition

Answer 21

D must be blameless

Question 22

Was Quick balmeless/ what test did it use?

Answer 22

diabtetic claimed insulin caused him to lose consciousness and cause injury was held by the CA to be a case where the defence should have been left to the jury. If the condition had arisen as a result of something which could have reasonably been foreseen going against medical advise then would lose. This test, is an objective one. What could have reasonably been foreseen.

Question 23

Where was a subjective test used

Answer 23

Bailey: applid subjective test, if D knows that what he is doing which includes failing to take food after insulin is likely to make him aggressive. The test for fault is a subjective one.
(subjective test) Defendant must act or fail to act knowing “that his actions or inactions are likely to make him aggressive, unpredictable or uncontrolled with the result that he may cause some injury to others”

Question 24

Which test is likley to be preferable?

Answer 24

These are inconsistent: Probably the more recent subjective test is preferable. See above (Unlikely Intoxicants) for how subjective fault leaves D liable to conviction for basic (but not specific) intent offences