Capacity Defences - automatism Flashcards
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) - important
Automatism means ‘an act done by the muscles without any control of the mind… or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing’.
Hill v Baxter (1958) - important
(2 things)
Automatic behaviour involves no fault on part of the defendant and therefore shouldn’t bring any criminal liability (Even for SL offences)
Examples of situations in which D acts automatically might include reactions to being hit on the head or driving badly because of a swarm of bees in the car,
R v T (1990) - important
For automatism, the loss of control over the muscles has to be total, a partial loss of control is not enough.
R v Coley (2013) - important
If D acts automatically because they have induced the automatism themselves eg taking drugs, then the defence of automatism isn’t available as the rules of intoxication would apply
R v Bailey (1983) - important
If automatism results from an inappropriate act or omission by D, the defence is not available to basic intent offences as recklessness can be made via the act or omission
R v Hennessy (1989)
If D acts automatically because of a medical condition, automatism isn’t available as they should use insanity instead
R v Quick (1973)
If D acts because of a drug used to help a medical condition the defence is available
Attorney General’s Reference No.2 of 1992
For automatism, the loss of control over the muscles has to be a total loss.
R v McGhee (2013)
If D acts automatically because they have induced the automatism themselves eg taking drugs, then the defence of automatism isn’t available as the rules of intoxication would apply
R v Hardie (1984)
If automatism results from an inappropriate act or omission by D, their defence is available to specific intent crimes
