Automatism/Non-insane Automatism Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Definition of automatism?

A

An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as spasm, reflex action or convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing, such as sleepwalking

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

Why is it a defence?

A

Because there isn’t a mens rea if the person is not controlling their actions

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

Who has the evidential burden of proof?

A

The defence

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

What happens if an automatism defence is successful?

A

Complete acquittal

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

Who has the legal burden of proof

A

The prosecution

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

What factor must there also be?

A

An external factor

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

What is an example of an external factor?

A

Hit on the head by object, slipping on ice, being overcome by illness, hiccups or coughing etc

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

Does a partial loss of control count?

A

No, must be total loss of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

When will automatism not be successful?

A

If a defendant knows their conduct will bring about an automatic state - Coley, McGhee and Harris

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

What can self-induced automatism be a defence for when the D knows it will bring about an automatic state?

A

Specific intent crimes, but not basic intent crimes

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

What is the exception to self-induced automatism not being a defence?

A

Where the D does not realise that their self-induced actions would cause automatism and they were not reckless - R v Hardie

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

R v Hardie

A

Took Valium and set fire to wardrobe - Defence still stood as it was not obvious that it would cause automatism and he was not reckless

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

Coley, McGhee and Harris

A

Drunk himself into an automatic state - No defence as it was self induced

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

What is the Law Commissions reform paper?

A

Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism

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

What did the Law Commission propose for reform?

A

Replace with two new defences, one for automatism arising from recognised medical conditions, and one from non-medical conditions.

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